User talk:JohnBlackburne/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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

Thanks for that

Sometimes when I pasted in what I want, it goes to the wrong spot. Thanks for catching that. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry

I am sorry for what I did to the article Relaxation Labelling. I will not do what I did again. Please accept my apologies. Thank you in advance: ~~ÁlgamiçaĞraţ 20:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algamicagrat (talk • contribs)

Integral Representation of Matrix Inverse

I think the formula is very useful because: 1) you can use it to really invert a matrix using monte carlo integration methods 2) it is very useful to have a closed simple analytic expression for analytic proofs and estimates. Please name strong reasons why do you think this is not true, or undo the delete. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.136.76 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's unsourced and as written makes no sense: the expression for the inverse is scalar valued. None of appears in the source given and even if the first formula were sourced the derivation is original research. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

yes you are right, the source given does not contain exactly the formula given but just parts of it. Unfortunately I do not know of any other reference containing exactly this formula. I do not consider it original research because the derivation is elementary from my point of view. No, you are wrong, the formula is not scalar valued, it is basically an infinite weighted linear combination of rank 1 factors of the form x(Ax)' , each of them is an nxn matrix. It is not the same as x'(Ax) which is a scalar of course. So maybe you could reconsider your decision? thank you

No, it's unsourced and incorrect. Looking at the source apart from not containing anything like the expressions in question the matrices A there is symmetric, not a general matrix, so even if the formula could be derived (which again would be original research) it would only apply to symmetric matrices. And even if all that were addressable it's not a useful method for finding the inverse, unless you can find a source describing it as such.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, maybe what is confusing you is the fact that I use (Ax)^2 to mean x'A'Ax which is quite a common convention (I thought) In the reference given the matrix A is symmetric, you are right, but if you look again at the integral formula you realize that the corresponding matrix here is A'A which is of course symmetric positive definite.. The formula as written is valid for any real (invertible) matrix (symmetric or not) and could be easily generalized to arbitrary complex matrices. The derivation is really elementary, the only fact needed (line 1) is that the expectation value of xx' of the multivariate normal distribution with mean 0 is its covariance matrix. If you still consider it original research feel free to publish it. good luck!

ok man, I give up :-( are you happy now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.191.182 (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have given my reasons for removing it again in detail at the article's talk page, so it would be better to reply there if you want to continue discussing it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I understand. I'll take care next time. Yes, I mean they are the same as Almost primes, but interpreted geometrically. Thanks for the link. -Azykwv (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC) You posted on my talk page: <The standard for Wikipedia is verifiability. This means everything should be able to be sourced in e.g. an existing publication. In this case I searched for the added terms to see if I could find a source but I could not. It seems you have rediscovered almost primes, with e.g. 3-almost primes being the same as your cuboid numbers.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)>

Cauchy Schwarz inequality

Hello JohnBlackburne,

I have to insist that the algebraic proof of the Cauchy Schwarz inequality for real numbers is correct... Unless you disagree with the trivial inequality $a^{2}\geq 0$ for all real numbers a, there is nothing that I see wrong with the proof. In fact, the trivial inequality is what proves the Cauchy Schwarz inequality for all real numbers in this particular case. Likewise the geometric proof is correct too. There is nothing circular about it. The definition of the dot product can be deduced using the law of cosine in two dimensions so there is no circular logic in stating the dot product is between -1 and 1. And if the problem with the geometric proof is that it only proves it for two dimensions then you can always create a new section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonchubocka (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The first problem is the inequality is not limited to just real numbers. Yes, it is relatively trivial for real numbers but that means there is no point adding a proof, especially one so verbose and badly formatted. It also has the problem that it is not coordinate free, so is much less useful as a proof than one which doesn't depend on coordinates, such as the proof already there.

The problem with using cosine is the proof is not just restricted to reals but to two, maybe three, dimensions. In higher dimensions that expression for cos given is usually used as the definition of the angle. As such it can't then be used to prove something that depends on that expression. And the proof for reals in two dimensions is really trivial, even more so than the one you gave.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay so you're saying the proofs are far too trivial to be included in the article? Additionally, I agree that the geometric proof doesn’t work for higher dimensions. But I state this fact in the proof and explain why the general proof of the Cauchy Schwarz actually lets us extrapolate this definition to higher dimensions. I find this illuminating in that it shows someone why anyone would even bother proving the Cauchy Schwarz inequality. And "useful", in my opinion, is really relative, someone can easily be confused by the decomposition used in the original proof and so might ,instead, find the proof really "useless". And while the algebraic proof uses coordinates, many readers probably have a grasp of basic algebra and might not have a hard time following the algebraic proof. I must also point out that the reader who finds the need to look up this article probably isn't very familiar with the Cauchy Schwarz inequality and so might not find the geometric proof all that trivial.

I don't see why the algebraic proof I provided isn't comparable in "triviality" to the algebraic proof provided in the section "Notable special cases." Sure I should have put it in this section to begin with, but thats just a copy and paste fix. Simonchubocka (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The second and third proofs are largely the same as yours, except they are compact, clearly written and in the right place.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Will it really destroy the article to have two different algebraic proofs? And the geometric "proof" provided is not really a proof. It's a statement of fact. Sure it's compact in a sense it says the idea in one or two sentences and a mathematician can probably easily deduce the results almost subconsciously, but again, not everyone reading the article knows the Cauchy Schwarz inequality or is a mathematician. And any person who already knows the Cauchy Schwarz inequality is obviously going to find some aspects of it trivial. You don't have to think very hard about something you already know.Just as how mabey as a toddler you might not have found the problem of solving quadratic equations trivial.

If my style is so "so verbose and badly formatted" why not give some advice instead... I'm no latex or linguistic master but I'm always happy to hear pointers. And I fail to see how statements like

"...More precisely, recoordinatize Rⁿ with any orthonormal basis whose first two vectors span a subspace containing x and y. In this basis only $x_{1},~x_{2},~y_{1}$ and $y_{2}~$ are nonzero, and the inequality reduces to the algebra of dot product in the plane..."

Is more "clear" than saying something along the lines of: "In two dimensions"Simonchubocka (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cobalt

The Cobalt (CAD program) article makes effective use of seven sources. How can you justify claiming that it “relies largely or entirely upon a single source”? Greg L (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. But I will leave the {reads like an advertisement} tag since that is a pure judgement call. Eventually, you will have to abide by a consensus—if one can be established over there—as to whether it does or does not read like an ad. Greg L (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. Your contributions history shows that you specialize mainly in rapid-fire revertings of other editors and reliance upon twinkle. Please be more deliberate with your edits. Greg L (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of the references are to the web site of the publisher, so it largely relies on that, a single source (and not a reliable one). As for my other edits I am as careful and deliberate with all of them as the one to Cobalt (CAD program).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your allegation isn’t supported at all by the facts. Anyone can do an in-text search for [2] thru [7] and see the article does not rely mainly on one source (the publisher). Secondly, the grand total of two citations to the publisher are for pure-fact items like the number of items in the tool library. Please read what you are doing next time. I’m an experienced editor, use this program, and know what I’m doing. And I can count. Greg L (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page in more detail.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Punchline

Was that it wasn't really a joke ;) Praetonia (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon

Hey, I think we are approaching a resolution. Sumanch (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Rotation group

Applause for doing a fabulous job disambiguating rotation group. I could see it needed to be done, but was putting it off till tomorrow... Jheald (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Slowly doing it and almost done. It's been quite interesting to see the ways the page was linked. I suspect we could do with a page for special orthogonal group as there's not really a good target for that, and I've been using redirects to SO(3) where it made sense in case anyone makes an article there.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign words

You reverted my addition to the MOS with the remark that there are many exceptions. I would be interested to know what these exceptions are, as I have already excluded words likely to be known by the general readership.

The use of such intertext translations is a standard editorial practice, and they are particlarly needful in a publication such as Wikipedia, which contains articles on an extremely wide range of topics and a readership that is mostly unacquainted with foreign languages. Wahrmund (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is that changes to policy should not be made without consensus, and I did not see any indication that there was consensus for your change. WP does not go by 'standard editorial practice', it has its own style guide which often diverges from other style guides.

On the particular point: what about names such as Tiananmen Square? Or Qing Dynasty? What about scientific and technical terms which are also foreign words? What about words in quotes, or even foreign language quotes? In these examples, where the words have some particular meaning, that meaning determines how they are treated. E.g. names such as those above may be linked, and a translation provided at the target article. Technical terms may be linked or may be unlinked, depending on the context/expected readership. And quotes are generally not linked or modified (so if they need translating it's done as a whole alongside). Other than that editors should not be adding foreign words to English articles, except for those that are readily understood.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon (disambiguation)

Hi John, I reverted your revert. I think since there is an ongoing discussion over moving Tachyon, it's reasonable to use a format for the disambiguation page that doesn't assume that one topic or the other is primary. However, I don't want to engage in an edit war, so if you revert my reverted revert I'll leave it alone. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

See MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic: when a page as this is of the kind "xxx (disambiguation)" the xxx is the primary topic, and should not be mixed in with the other entries. Mercury is very different. There is no primary topic, but at least two common English uses ("drinking Mercury is good for you", "I went to Mercury for my holidays"), so both appear.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but in this case which topic is primary (if it's either) is under dispute and currently being discussed. Wouldn't it show good faith to wait until that debate reaches consensus before imposing your view? Or is the cost of allowing an ever-so-slightly irregular disambiguation page to exist for a few days just too great to bear? Regarding the article itself, it would be nice if you would discuss your changes on the talk page, rather than simply reverting mine. Thanks in advance. Both of those edits are in full accord with wiki policy, follow multiple examples on other pages, and - far more importantly - make the article significantly clearer. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are based on what's in articles. So if the article is tachyon then that's the primary topic and per MOS:DAB#Linking to a primary topic it gets mentioned at the top separate from all other articles. If that article is moved the disambiguation page will be updated. Until then it should follow the guidelines.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon is the name, not "what's in" the article, and that article doesn't describe the primary topic (in my view, and that of at least one other). I've presented rather strong evidence for my view, none of which has been refuted (or even discussed). In any case, as you will, it's not worth arguing over. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main point about disambiguation pages is they're not based on anyone's views. They're not sourced, so there's no appealing to sources. They are titled based on other pages, in particular what is the primary topic. More generally in all ways they follow the articles. As the article is tachyon then that's the link, on its own as it's the primary topic. Each other article appears on its own line below, with a link which matches the article name and optionally a few words to help readers identify the article they want.

If tachyon is moved then the disambiguation page will be updated. It will take no time to do, so can easily be done by any editor, after the page is moved. Until then there's no need to change it, to reflect such a potential move or because of other changes that haven't happened yet.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tachyon move

John, the comment you replied to just now wasn't referring to the disambiguation page, but rather to your request for popular sources regarding the proposed move of Tachyon. I thought that was clear, and I didn't want to clutter up your talk page with new sections, but since there was a confusion I've added this one. Sorry for the mixup. Older comment follows below. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi John, earlier you asked for popular sources that use the term "tachyon" to refer to the material discussed at Tachyonic field. I've posted two such sources now at the talk page. Here's the most verbose, from Lisa Randall's (a professor at Harvard) book Warped Passages, p. 286:

"The first problem....was that it contained a tachyon. People initially thought of tachyons as particles travelling faster than the speed of light (the term comes from...)...But we now know that a tachyon represents an instability...." Waleswatcher (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Again disambiguation and other navigation pages aren't sourced and don't go by sources. They go by what articles exist. While there's an article at Tachyon that's the primary topic for Tachyon (disambiguation) and the disambiguation page should reflect this. If the article is moved the disambiguation page can be quickly updated.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your reverts of the tachyon article

John, please stop wholesale reverting my edits on the Tachyon article. If you discuss them on the talk page (as requested), I'm sure we can come to a consensus. If you prefer, you can edit selectively by changing the parts you disagree with, and we can try to reach consensus that way. Wholesale reverts are not the way to go about that. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam Link

Hey, i have a question to your revision of my link in the dot product article. I don't think i added a spam link to this article, because in my opinion all the included weblinks need an installed JAVA Version (and please corret me if I'm wrong, the excisting links do nearly all the same) and not everyone has installed JAVA or want to use JAVA. Therefore i thougt, i would be nice to add this weblink to a quick calculator of the dot product. I don't want to attack you or something like that. I just want to know why you think the link is a spam link. PS: Sorry for my bad English, normaly i'm more active on the German Version PSS: In the German Wikipedia the Website link is included and reviewed.

--DKPrestige (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I just so you also deleted my link in the scalar multiplication article, same question here. Why you think the link is a spam link? --DKPrestige (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If an editor that I'm not familiar with contributes a link to an article without adding content I will often review their other contributions, and if they seem only to be adding links to articles, especially the same link or links to the same site to multiple articles, then it is likely they are more interested in promoting that site than improving articles, and are spamming articles with that link or those links.

In general you should not add links to your own site to articles. If the site is notable and a useful resource than someone else will find it and add it, perhaps using it as a reference or even mentioning it in the article. But if no-one else thinks it noteworthy enough to add then you should not add it yourself. Doing so is a conflict of interest, and naturally leads other editors to question whether you are here to improve the encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Read I

Ik zal doen wat ik wil, dankzij echter.Adeltaarabt (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to to write in English for me to understand you.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

I have started an RFC/U draft for Brad7777 here. I've never done one of these before, so I'd appreciate any help you could offer in drafting it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

magic square

From my perspective water retention on mathematical surfaces provides a valuable insight into present work with magic squares. Magic squares is a recreational mathematics topic. The recreational mathematics community has been active in this area. Harvey heinz has 3 updates on his web page.. Al Zimmermann's internationally recognized computing contest made this a subject of investigation in 2010. New computing tools that manipulate magic squares are exposed.. Finally this work illustrates the great symbiosis between recreational mathematics and physics with the 2012 Physical Review Letter on the same topic.. A student who wished to look at the magic square topic to see what new active investigations are in progress would benefit from having this topic included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.223.81 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the water retention content, from previous discussions on it. But it's a separate topic to magic squares, and already has its own article, which already covers the topic in great if not excessive detail. There is no need then to add content on water retention into other articles. It would be more appropriate to add a link, so those interested can read about the topic all in one place. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment?

Hi. Would you like to comment here about a requested move? It involves ".com" in the article title and WP:COMMONNAME. Dan56 (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Anaximander fragment

Understanding of the fragment isn't aided to have just the English translation in the body of the article since if you might check the reference (Heidegger) there are three translation versions given, plus as is cooberated by Krell the fragment is shown as the text just reverted and not the longer Simplicius given in reference, which by the way isn't even showing a source where a person might look at the original , nor verifies accurately the actual english sentence in the article.

Simplicius transmitted it as a quotation, which describes the balanced and mutual changes of the elements

this is unverified as as far as is known by the reference directly, he didn't transmitt the statement describing anything,

Plus the sentence just reverted is different to the same identified sentence within the referenced source, and the English 32 word translation doesn't actually correspond to the 106 greek words given in the reference. Drift chambers (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed your change had a large number of issues and went to edit the article to fix it, then noticed that the added text seemed to be just a part of the quote given in the reference, so removed it. This is the English Wikipedia and very few readers know Greek, so having Greek text in the article does not aid understanding and it should not be added. Normally it's not needed even in a footnote or reference. If it's sourced then readers can consult the source, often on Wikisource for older texts. If it's not sourced it shouldn't be included at all.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's understandable that you have reservations about including greek text within the body of the article, translation of something in philosophy doesn't necvessarily require the original. In the examples though the two version are not the same.

[έξ ὦν δέ ή γένεσίς έστι τοίς οὖσι καί τήν φθοράν είς ταύτα γίνεσθαι κατά τό χρεών· διδόναι γὺρ αὐτὰ δίκην] ἀλλήλοις κατά τὴν τοὓ χρόνου τάξιν

[ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών· διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ δίκην] καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν

furthermore the referenced information might be C. H. Kahn - Anaximander and the origins of Greek cosmology from p.166 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c0z-QbIW84EC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=Charles+Kahn+Anaximander+fragment&source=bl&ots=9M2C5Mrl1m&sig=l-oOmZ_9mwlMjpjOjTZOXhQN5CA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sZFbT82hFOnN0QWo5vnFDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ANAXIMANDER%20FRAGMENT%3ATHE%20UNIVERSE%20GOVERNED%20BY%20LAW&f=false

although within the same text > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c0z-QbIW84EC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=Charles+Kahn+Anaximander+fragment&source=bl&ots=9M2C5Mrl1m&sig=l-oOmZ_9mwlMjpjOjTZOXhQN5CA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sZFbT82hFOnN0QWo5vnFDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=5.THE%20FRAGMENT&f=false

which shows actually a 36 word Fragment

and also the text:

Punctuation does not exist in Ancient Greek and quotes usually blend with surrounding text. Consequently, deciding where they start and where they end is often difficult. However, it is generally accepted that this quote is not Simplicius' own interpretation, but Anaximander's writing, in "somewhat poetic terms" as it is mentioned by Simplicius, added 20:28, 22 May 2007‎ Robin Hood sits in the reference as an authority to which no recognized respected authority is shown ,so on good faith is taken as correct when not at all valid, at least in the current state.

Drift chambers (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have explained why I undid your edit, but they were primarily for the reasons of breaking the formatting and using a language other than English. I would say neither Greek version needs to be in the article, for the reasons I gave above, but I don't know enough about the topic to evaluate them. If you have concerns about the content you should raise them on the talk page where it can attract the attention of editors more familiar with the topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Time Machine

Hi, as I am not one of the WP cabal, please instruct me how to add this obviously true information without bureaucratic reversion, or even help me by adding it yourself. 86.135.115.218 (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

See The manual of style for Dab pages, but the rule is that entries in disambiguation pages match articles, with one line per article and so one link per article. Sources are never used, it just goes by what's in articles (which may be sourced).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for userfying my sandbox. You're a peach. Ishtar456 (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No apology?

• Methinks you owe SchmuckyTheCat an apology, as you should have clarified with him first on his talk page before proceeding with the case on the Admin's noticeboard for 3RR. FWIW, I've seen SchmuckyTheCat dealt with the BANNED editor "Instanood" before and the guy always hang around those few topics that interest me and SchmuckyTheCat. In short, we know him all too well already. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologised for mishandling the notification, but still think it needed to be raised at the noticeboard and that both editors' behaviours needed examining. In this case if the IP is a sock the proper course of action would be to identify them as such, get them blocked and make it clear in the edit summaries that the edits are being reverted for block evasion and/or socking. With the reverts from both editors happening so quickly I thought it best to raise the issue at the noticeboard.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously, I beg to differ, this kind of thing needs to be fought with a time-delay sometimes so that you can get a clearer, saner picture before deciding it is such. FYI, me, SC and a couple other guys, we all have a very sensitive nose to sniff out them socks, especially those of BANNED editors we've known very well over the years in the area of our interest. Also, we've dealt with them socks many times already. Unlike kids and/or teens, as mature folks they seldom change their tactic and interest if they can help it, thus narrowing down the prospect of a wrongful accusation or mistaken identity. FWIW, that's all I can say because the Admins too know it when our nose twitches due to the pungent scent of them socks. It's either you trust us or you don't. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, take a long/hard look at User talk:Abenyosef and decide if this is also BANNED/BLOCKED editor. It is as if them socks came from the same dirty drawer, their behavioural pattern does not differ much between cultures and/or nationalities. No? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:Observations on Wikipedia behavior
• This page above might help you learn more. Don't forget to play nice next time... cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am vaguely aware of Instantnood but I did not make the association and was given no help in doing so by SC's edits. It's difficult to tell when you can just see two editors reverting each other. I still think if you're dealing with a disruptive sock or other edit warrior get them blocked first, not revert-war with them across multiple pages, dragging other editors into it. So I still think the noticeboard was a good place to take this: I have been dragged there at least once for no good reason and it's not worried me. It just means more experienced eyes look at the problem and decide if any action needs taking.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand where you're coming from with regards to this experienced eyes thing but sometimes it is better to just wait and watch if one of the party is an established editor like yourself. FWIW, you could take a more proactive approach by asking him what seems to be the probelm and if he needs help to deal with the situation, don't you think so? Win-win, no? When you find that you can trust others, others will trust you too. Yes? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nevermind, just wait till one fine day them smelly socks turn their attention on you by canvassing, hounding, stalking, taunting and vandalising against your edits... you'll find out pretty soon who your real friends are in here. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For a simple and useful proposal to put an image into the π sidebar navbox. Noleander (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello JohnBlackburne. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what

Sorry but I really have to say it: You are very annoying. I can just change my signature if you don't like it. And according to Wikipedia's Policy, you should ask me to change it, not delete it.  Derek LeungLM 00:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is hardly appropriate. Please don't comment on a contributor (saying things like "you are very annoying"), comment on content. Bmusician 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for that.  [ Derek Leung | LM ] 00:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your latest edit to Tachyon

Your latest edit moves a sentence in the lede from one position to another position a few lines below. Your edit summary is "But the article is about the particle, not other uses of the word," which makes no sense in light of the edit you made. It also makes no sense given the fact that the sentence summarizes material in the body of the article (which FYI is about tachyons), as the lede is supposed to do, leaving the issue of your motives in question. I respectfully suggest you revert your edit. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is on the use of the word "tachyon", so belongs in the second paragraph which is on the etymology/history of its usage, how it was a week ago and how Bhny restored it two days ago. You seem to be confusing the topic of this article: it is about the hypothetical FTL particle, commonly called the "tachyon". That the word is used for other things should be mentioned somewhere but it is not part of the main definition.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is not just on the use of the term - it summarizes significant material in the article (indeed, about 1/3 of the entire article is about imaginary mass). There is an entire section on imaginary mass fields and another on mass (that concludes it must be imaginary), and this is obviously on topic for an article about tachyons. I really don't know why you keep pretending otherwise. Wiki's guidelines specify that the lede should summarize the article, and it doesn't specify where in the lede some given material should be. As for etymology, "imaginary mass field" has little to do with the etymology of the term. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Euler's rotation page

Concerning your edits to the page "Euler's rotation", I again emphasize that you are missing the point. Since I don't want us to start an edit war, I think it's best to discuss this on your talk page.

The current revision on that page reads: "A general orthogonal matrix has only one real eigenvalue, either +1 or −1. When it is +1 the matrix is a rotation. When −1, the matrix is an improper rotation."

This is false, since there are orthogonal matrices with more than one real eigenvalue. I am not disputing the improper rotation bit. I am simply saying that orthogonal matrices can have more than one real eigenvalue. I suggest you revert your edit.

If you need an example, consider (again) the matrix

$R={\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&0\\0&0&1\\\end{pmatrix}}$

It is orthogonal: $R^{\mathrm {T} }R=RR^{\mathrm {T} }=I,\,$ and it has two distinct real eigenvalues: -1 and 1.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.209.138 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are particular orthogonal matrices with multiple real eigenvalues. That's why I added "general". This is no different from saying e.g. a general quintic cannot be solved algebraically. There are particular quintics such as x⁵ - 1 = 0 that can be solved by taking roots but a general quintic cannot be solved so directly. The other part of the change is that with an orthogonal matrix if it's not a rotation it's an improper rotation or rotoreflection, rather than a reflection. A reflection is a rotoreflection with if the rotation part is through a zero angle, so is a particular example of it. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds

00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The wording as it currently stands is wrong. It must be changed to something alone the lines of: "In general, an orthogonal matrix may have only one real eigenvalue." This is very different from saying that is has to be that way.

The wording is fine "a general ... " is good English but more importantly it's the conventional way of wording it in mathematics. See e.g. the first paragraph of quadratic equation where it gives the equation for a general quadratic. In that case general emphasises that cases with a = 0 are excluded. Here we exclude the exceptional cases of pure reflections, the rotoinversion and the identity matrix. Rather than list all those we just write "a general orthogonal matrix...".--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That example (quadratic equation) is very different. It implies that given any quadratic equation, we can write it in that form. It's not saying or implying anything about a being 0 or not. I can't see how that relates to the current problem. In that article, at least, a formal definition is given before presenting the symbolic form. About the problem at hand, I suggest changing it to "It can be shown that the eigenvalues of an orthogonal matrix lie on the unit circle. If an orthogonal matrix has a real eigenvalue that is -1, it is an improper rotation. Otherwise, it is a proper rotation. It can thus be seen that proper rotations have only one real eigenvalue." This is both general and encapsulates the different cases in a neat way. By the way, it's also worth mentioning that this is true due to a theorem of Brioschi. You seem knowledgable about mathematics (looking at your previous edits) so I'm surprised you don't (or don't want to) admit that as it currently stands the sentence is very misleading and leads to the wrong conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.209.138 (talk) 03:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your recent editing history at Tachyon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Help needed with pi article

I'm preparing to nominate the pi article for Featured Article status. I think it is ready, but I've been staring at it so long, I'm not sure I'm objective any longer :-) ... and it always good to have a fresh pair of eyes take a look. Do you have time to read the article and - if you see any issues - make some suggestions for improvement? You can just jot down your ideas on the pi article Talk page, and I'll take it from there. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

wtf?

Hi,

Why can't I edit articles? They are all protected.

-Thanks! ArticleDestroyer9033 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've answered on your talk page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you joking?

That's ridiculous. How can I make edits if every single page is protected/semi-protected? It's as if you people make it impossible for new editors to emerge. ArticleDestroyer9033 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of pages aren't protected or semi-protected. Those that are protected have a small picture of a padlock in the top-right hand corner and only a small fraction do. You can edit almost all the pages of Wikipedia, even without registering.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Please accept my apology for my revisions tonight. I went to 'undo' but you had already done so. Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No problems, I've made similar slips myself, clicking too quickly on a page before the browser's finished arranging things and hitting a 'restore' or 'rollback' link.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being so understanding. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! GeorgeHarnish (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Repost of Misha B (singer)

The article is not a re-post, all the content is different from the previous version which was deleted in December 2011. But, now that the singer has signed a record deal, released a mix-tape and is working with producers for her album, and also signed a publishing deal she needs a wiki page.

Please see the discussion here:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for deletion#An editor evading AfD by creating redirect

where the article's creation was raised and discussed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions, JohnBlackburne. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: Brews ohare topic-ban (Speed of light)

The following was resolved by motion:

1. From the statements, it is more probable than not that User:Brews ohare is unable to work cooperatively and effectively with others within the topic and is thus repeating the behaviour which resulted in his now expired sanctions. The earlier episodes were very disruptive and were a great drain on the community's patience and resources.

2. It follows that preventative action is appropriate. Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. After a minimum period of at least one year has elapsed, Brews ohare may ask the Arbitration Committee to reconsider the topic ban, giving his reasons why the Committee should do so.

3. Should Brews ohare violate this topic ban he may be blocked, initially for up to one week, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the clock for any lifting of the topic ban restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. Appeals of blocks may only be made by email to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China "move"

I suppose it was a copy and paste move, but I didn't think of it like that, sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for correcting the image size. I did not know that WP automatically inserted image sizes. This was my first attempt to insert an image here so I've learned something. Thanks!Quill and Pen (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not Facebook

If you had checked the link you would have discovered who represented Lexus and more about Lexus in general. I will rollback your edit as the newest exlink is a good one. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

See: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. That's from the link you provided. I've done you a favor as according to the page history another contributor has claimed the information about Lexus is incorrect. We now have two exlinks confirming this information as being accurate. The Facebook page is further detailed about the organization as compared to the Lexus Project.org website. I will post this to the article discussion page too. Quill and Pen (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please reply on the article talk page. I will read anything written here but the article talk page can be read by anyone interested in the article and is the first place someone will look when considering contentious edits.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have requested admin assistance to prevent an edit war. Please leave my edits in place for review by an admin. Thanks!Quill and Pen (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on the discussion page concerning the Lexus Project. You can read the admin's comments there. Thanks for helping me learn the ropes here. Quill and Pen (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New kid in town

Hi! John, I am the new kid in town at WP so I do appreciate your patience and look forward to you teaching the finer details of WP style. I am not a total newbie to wiki writing as I have written over 500 articles at wikiHow; patrolled almost 40,000 recent changes patrols and participate as a New Article Booster (NAB) at WH. I am not an admin but I do have some say in editorial content by making title changes and selecting Rising Stars at wikiHow. At Wikipedia I have earned two Barnstars for participating in the Guild of Copy Editors copy editing drives. I plan to help out more with copy editing as WP seems to have been pretty well written out. I have not tried patrolling here as I need to learn a bit more about style and the "lay of the land." I started out writing encyclopedia type articles at Citizendium and decided to give WP a try. I am a retired journalist who has covered everything from human interest stories to governmental affairs. I sure would appreciate your help and understanding as I start a new venture in learning how WP works. Nice meeting you!

Quill and Pen has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hope the cookie tag worked. If not it's the thought that counts. Quill and Pen (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Threejs

Hello JohnBlackburne. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Threejs, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I of course could not compare them, but was only going on my recollection and that it was created within a day of the other page's deletion. I will look at it again and see if I think it needs to go to AfD.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello JohnBlackburne.

I am the author of a new Three.js page. I have written a commentary of the new article and on why Three.js is sufficiently notable here: Talk:Three.js. I have also noted my conflict of interest as an enthusiastic user of the library on the talk page and here: User_talk:Theoa/Threejs. I look forward to your comments, criticisms and suggestions.

TheoA (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:50.131.200.103

User:50.131.200.103 is not adding promotional material to articles, he is adding legitimate researched material to articles he is an expert in. I have reviewed the materials and concluded they are not promotional in any way :-) <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

See his additions to Talk:Conway's Game of Life: 'Added discussion of Beta Test for and internals of Warp Life for the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch.' and the repost. Wikipedia is not the place to post promotional information about and links to your product, unless it is notable (and the publisher of a program is usually the last person to judge this). I too have written Game of Life software, and much other software, but I don't use WP to promote or link to it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne's Inappropriate Reversions of my Posts to Conway's Game of Life Talk Page

John, are you REALLY that ignorant?

Did you even TRY to read what I posted?

I have devoted two and a half solid years to research into faster Cellular Automaton Algorithms, and have had some significant success with the code I have actually working so far, as well as some theoretical reasons to believe that I can achieve orders of magnitudes faster performance, infinite grid dimensions while at the same time making quite sparing use of memory.

We Are Clearly Not Achieving A Meeting Of The Minds Here.

I am struggling quite DESPERATELY to announce new research results that are already published in detail elsewhere, yet within MINUTES of my every attempt to do so, you revert my ENTIRE post without giving any other Conway's Game of Life editor any opportunity to find out that I ever even posted it!

That Is Just Not Right.

The purpose of the Talk Pages is to have discussions from which consensus might arise.

My intention is ultimately to post a synopsis of the Warp Life Algorithm in the Algorithms section of the article itself, but before I can do that, I need to discuss Warp Life with the other editors.

To Make Myself Perfectly Clear:

I Am Not Promoting A Product, I Am Reporting New Results In My Software Engineering Research.

I'm also posting it to the Talk Page, not to the article itself, for the specific purpose of collaborating with the other editors on what does ultimately get posted to the main article.

On Warp Life's Notability

Who the Hell are YOU to judge whether my Algorithm is notable?

I don't regard having written a Life Game yourself as any kind of qualification to make that judgement. It's not like the Rules of Conway's Life are hard to implement. There is quite a lot more that goes into making notable code than just getting the basic Algorithm to run at all.

Have you ever run any form of Conway's Game of Life on an iOS device?

I have installed every last one of Warp Life's competition from the App Store and every last one is quite frankly PATHETIC.

Some friends have done the same on their Android devices with Apps from the Google Play store, then reported to me that every last one of them was complete crap.

If you were to actually try out a few completely randomly-selected Apps from the App Store, it would not be long at all before you would doubtlessly concluded that Apps that don't crash or lose end-user data are definitely notable.

You are NOT G-d Almighty Himself.

Stop Being Such A Jackass!

Good Day.

MichaelCrawford

The problem is you didn't post any links to published research, just links to your iPhone game. You didn't ask for anyone to review your published paper for inclusion, you asked for beta testers for your game. The edit summary, 'Added discussion of Beta Test for and internals of Warp Life for the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch', and title 'Warp Life for iOS' also made it clear this was about the game not about academic research.

Even if you removed all references to the game and reposted just the academic research you need to provide a WP:reliable source for it to be included in the article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, nor is it the place for promoting your own work. Certainly post links to your published research on the talk page, so editors can review it and advise you on whether it should be included. But the talk page should not be used to promote commercial products, including asking for people to test it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

JohnBlackburne, I did not post anything of any sort to the article. I posted a very preliminary discussion of the Warp Life Algorithm to the Conway's Game of Life TALK PAGE!!! My objective in doing so was to introduce the other editors to my new algorithm, so I would have some assistance in distilling it down to its bare essentials, and to describe it concisely and succinctly when, at a much later date, I do include it in the body of the main article itself.

Also I completely fail to understand how requesting someone review a published paper would in any way be significantly different than asking someone to Beta Test my implementation of the Algorithm. It will not be until I have completely working, debugged, fully implemented and optimized code that any kind of publication of a paper is possible. That is because my experience has been that some user-observable bugs in the product were in reality defects of the design of my algorithm.

Just now I stumbled across some mention of a formal dispute resolution policy here. Immediately after posting this latest edit, I'm going to avail myself of it in hopes of putting a stop to your abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.200.103 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference with a paper is it's only after it's become a reliable source that it can be used. I.e. it should already have been peer reviewed for its publication in a journal, or evaluated by the editors at publisher before it is published in a book. I.e. the only thing that needs doing is to look at the source and ensure it supports any additions to the article. There is no need to evaluate its correctness as the review process does that for us, which is why we ask for WP:reliable sources.

But you didn't provide a link to the journal or book your work is in. You didn't provide any link to it. You provided links to your product, asking for beta testers. When I last worked for a games company we employed full time testers. Wikipedia is not a job board for you to find yours, or a place for you to promote your product in any other way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Ll

Thank you for letting me know about your latest deletion effort. Once you get an idea in your head you really cannot let go, can you? Where does this all end? If you don't like my templates, don't use them. Some other users do happen to like them. I personally don't care. I just abhor these endless and idiotic debates. Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. – You may wish to actually look at the templates you find so egregious.  Buaidh  19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I didn't see the error until you had already fixed it, thank you for your help. Insomesia (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)