User talk:JayBeeEll

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…
167		Multiplicative inverse (talk)	Add sources
229		Fundamental theorem of arithmetic (talk)	Add sources
167		Exponentiation by squaring (talk)	Add sources
187		Health effects of electronic cigarettes (talk)	Add sources
834		Binary number (talk)	Add sources
255		Subtraction (talk)	Add sources
188		Long division (talk)	Cleanup
13		On Weights and Measures (talk)	Cleanup
188		Horner's method (talk)	Cleanup
196		Generating function (talk)	Expand
47		Enriques–Kodaira classification (talk)	Expand
666		Feedback (talk)	Expand
584		Decimal separator (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
211		Square root algorithms (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
503		Crime in the United States (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
101		EarthBound fandom (talk)	Merge
100		Mercy Health (Ohio and Kentucky) (talk)	Merge
37		Kolattam (talk)	Merge
25		Compatibility (mechanics) (talk)	Wikify
625		Greek numerals (talk)	Wikify
456		Racism in the United States (talk)	Wikify
5		Bueno-Orovio–Cherry–Fenton model (talk)	Orphan
3		Synergistic system (talk)	Orphan
3		Anura Ekanayake (talk)	Orphan
37		Fancade (talk)	Stub
10		A with diaeresis and macron (Cyrillic) (talk)	Stub
7		Arnaud des Pallières (talk)	Stub
10		Jun Sawada (talk)	Stub
9		Phyllis Cormack (talk)	Stub
20		Capital Hilton (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 Wikipedia 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) 00:16, 13 July 2026 (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

I wanted to answer your coment, but I couldn't.

Very sad that you accuse me of repeated pattern on your part of inappropriately personalizing disputes.

I am a mathematician and the only thing I do is write mathematic articles. I read mathematic articles in many languages like Russian, German or French. I only want to help science. I wrote 185 articles about mathematics in the German wikipedia already. Very sad that you think so bad of me. It was never my intention to attack anyone. I just want my science articles to be published.--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tensorproduct: Here are two completely unrelated things I've observed you do on Wikipedia: (1) write articles about mathematics or mathematicians. (2) personalize disputes unnecessarily, and bring old disputes up in unrelated contexts ("axe-grinding"). Sometimes in the course of doing activity (1), you've come across people who disagree with you about what makes a good Wikipedia article in some way, or who misunderstand something you've done; this is a normal part of human interaction on Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia editors handle friction in these situations by following the guidance laid out in policies and guidelines like WP:AGF and WP:FOC. I wish that you also did that, instead of doing (2). (Observe in particular that the two activities (1) and (2) are completely independent of each other.) --JBL (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Separately, I apologize for using the action of closing the off-topic discussion to also criticize you; I think Tito Omburo was correct to question whether this was appropriate, and I have revised to remove the characterization of you from the box summary. I don't know what you mean that you couldn't answer my comment (it is certainly technically possible to edit the section, e.g. by pressing the "edit" button in the section heading in desktop mode). --JBL (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

1) You claimed that what I said was a "gross misrepresentation of those events" but you didn't show us where this was a "gross misrepresentation".

2) You mentiond the Wikipedia:Assume good faith but again you claim that "I personalize disputes unnecessarily, and bring old disputes up in unrelated contexts". I only write mathematics articles and that is 99.99% of my actions I do here. To reduce my actions on Wikipedia to "personalize disputes" is a gross missrepresentation of what I do here.

3) The user Ldm1954 tried a second time to prevent one of my articles with dubious claims. The claims had zero substance and I wanted to show that. I just stated what happen before, it's the truth and everybody can read it in the article history. This user has not written 1 mathematics article.

4) I act in good faith writing articles and the mistake was done by another user - yet you attack me and claiming I did not act in good faith. Maybe you should think whether your actions in the end are helping the mathematics on wikipedia or not. Your actions will sure contribute to my departure from Wikipedia.--Tensorproduct (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

As elsewhere, your responses here hopelessly muddle two activities of yours on Wikipedia: writing articles, and interacting with other editors. My criticisms of you are entirely related to the second activity. I would be willing to continue this discussion on my talk-page only under the conditions that you acknowledge that these are two separate activities, and agree to restrict attention in this discussion to the second one (your interactions with other users). Do you accept these terms? --JBL (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I did not want to interact with anyone here and certainly not Ldm1954, he came back trying to prevent once more one of my articles out of the blue. If people support the actions of other users trying to prevent articles, then I am no longer wasting my time here writing any articles. No wonder there are very few active mathematicians here.--Tensorproduct (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

If you don't want to interact with people, then (1) why are you pestering me on my talk-page?, and (2) Wikipedia may not be for you, since it is fundamentally a colaborative project, governed by policies like Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of content, that you are obligated to abide by as long as you contribute here.

Frankly, I do not think that the reason there are too few active mathematicians here is because mathematicians are unpleasant, self-absorbed people who are unable to treat others collaboratively and respectfully, as you seem to suggest. In any case, since you do not wish to interact people, I would be happy if you were to not prolong this particular interaction any further. --JBL (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:J. K. Rowling#RfC: Referring to Rowling's views as "gender-critical"

The istructions given at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs do not list incorrect claims that an RFC is a rehash as being a reason for a close. Please re-open. TarnishedPath^talk 23:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The closure was appropriate, and should not be reversed - thanks, JayBeeEll. The RfC was poorly constructed, and cannot conceivably come to a useful consensus. I'm not even saying we shouldn't revisit the previous RfC - it ended without consensus, after all - but the one you opened is going to be a time sink with no useful outcome. With all due respect, please drop this. If you feel the need for an immediate RfC, at least workshop it a little such that it will not get mired in procedural trouble. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, the issue as I see it is that the prior RFC ended with what would appear to be consensus against "Gender-critical", but no consensus for what the alternative is. Given Sandstein's refussal to clarify what WP:NOCON entailed, further discussion is necessary. TarnishedPath^talk 00:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, further discussion is necessary. That does not mean an immediate RfC, and an eventual RfC needs to have a neutral opening statement. Yours did not, which is why it has seen a slew of procedural objections. Please leave the closure be, and open a discussion to find another way forward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing that the question was not neutral. It stated that there were 5 usages of the term "gender-critical" which weren't attributed. That fact was verfiable. Anyone could go to the PermanentLink I provide and see that gender-critical was in the article 5 times and without any quotation makes. TarnishedPath^talk 00:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality with respect to article content and neutrality in posing an RfC question are quite different. Your opening statement prejudged the question being asked. And asking whether something is NPOV-compliant is not a useful RfC question. And ultimately even if you can't see it that way, the fact that any number of participants are rejecting the RfC should be indication enough that it's a problem. That's the last I'll say about this unless you're still interesting in reopening that RfC. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I gave a longer response below but let me just add that even if you can't see it that way, the fact that any number of participants are rejecting the RfC should be indication enough that it's a problem. is the crucial point of the close: RfCs as a mechanism don't work when a large fraction of participants reject their validity in good faith. It is always better to spend the extra time making sure that participants on all sides agree about what question an RfC should settle before starting one. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said in my own closure, I think the best way to go about resolving the ambiguity of the no consensus closure would be to workshop alternatives that would be able to gain consensus on the article. And if that's not possible without more clarification by the closer of the previous RFC, perhaps a closure review may be necessarily that is specifically focused on overturning the implications of a no consensus on this RFC and does not relitigate the RFC. However I think a closure review carries the risk of prolonging the debate without any novel solutions being put forth that could reasonably succeed, so I think for now the focus should be on workshopping those new solutions before putting forth another RFC, preferably one that is worded neutrally. Gramix13 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

There was no relitigation. It was different questions in each RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi TarnishedPath, thanks for your message. Any realistic outcome conclusion of the RfC you started could reasonably have been reached as a conclusion in the prior RfC; this is what I believe the plurality of voices in the RfC meant when they said it was a rehash. More generally, I have difficulty imagining any RfC in which the eight editors in the first 30 hours !vote "bad RfC" or equivalent leading to a consensus for anything. I think it is clear that more discussion on the topics treated by both RfCs is required; hopefully, through good-faith discussion, editors will be able to identify sufficiently precise and focused points of disagreement that future discussion (possibly via RfC) will be able to settle them.

With respect to whether the RfC statement was neutral, I think that the argument that it was not is based on the inclusion of potentially contestable statements (e.g., in the first sentence) as a framing mechanism. I do not have a personal opinion about whether those framing statements are accurate or not (I have not read the article), but it seems to me that that is the main focus of the objection. The question "should these statements be in wiki-voice, be attributed to particular people, or be removed?" seems like a totally appropriate discussion topic; indeed you started such a discussion already, and I think it would have been a more promising approach to allow that discussion to develop, rather than rushing to a new RfC. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Householder

I about got caught up in the same edit as you and Anita did! It's so easy to assume it was about Hessenberg matrices that you completely forget about what Householder transformations are most frequently used for! I'm glad it wasn't just my brain. Fephisto (talk) 01:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, JayBeeEll. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fundamental theorem of calculus

I would like to restructure the article on Fundamental theorem of calculus. Since this could be disputed, I think you are the perfect one to review this one, most of which are sourced, although messy in the latter. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dedhert.Jr:, I will try to take a look sometime this week. --JBL (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Take your time. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dedhert.Jr, I had a first read through your draft and I want to make sure I understand what I'm looking at. Is it correct to summarize the big-picture changes as follows, working from top to bottom?

• the expansion of the History section into two parts, one that is history and one that is general background on calculus;
• the removal of two uncited sections on intuition;
• restructuring the main mathematical sections so that each half of the theorem is immediately followed by its proof, rather than giving statements of several theorems in one ssection and proofs in several subsequent sections; and
• removal of the uncited Examples section

(and also the addition or improvement of references in the parts that are not removed). Is there anything major that changed aside from these points? Thanks, --JBL (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

For examples section, I could added anyway. I was hoping to connect the calculus topic background to those fundamental theorems, in addition to recap. The second theorem section, somehow, has a good illustration for description, which I cannot figure it out where to place it. Any ideas, or any additional ideas you want to pour in? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Dedhert.Jr, I'm not entirely sure that I understood this message. Is it an answer to my questions? If so, could I ask you to be a bit more direct in response? Thanks, --JBL (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay let me rephrase. I replied to your comment on summarize: my point in this draft is to rewrite the whole article, which includes the removal of sections on intuition, adding the examples for each fundamental theorem, and restructure the theorem sections followed by the proof, as you suggested.

At the same time, I would like to connect the definition of integral and derivative in the "background" section to the fundamental theorems per WP:MTAU, which might be helpful to understand the proof as well. I have no idea how to do it, and perhaps I could probably rewrite it as well and follow the book sources. The same reason when I was trying to keep the illustration for the second theorem.

Let me know if you have some comments for improvements or found some flaws in my ideas. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps. I will take another look through and see if I can come up with some substantive/constructive thoughts. --JBL (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dedhert.Jr, I wanted to apologize that it's taking me so long to get to this; I haven't forgotten, and I hope to say something meaningful later this month. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Like I said. Take your time. You can give the comments anytime. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dedhert.Jr,

Here are some (rather scattered) thoughts:

• It is odd that the current article takes so very long to get around to the statement of either part of the theorem; I think there is definitely something to be said about a structure like yours where the statements come earlier.
• The section 'Sketch of geometric proof' in the present article is totally unsourced, but I believe that in principle it could be sourceable. Compared with the first, informal proof in your version, it has a higher ratio of words to symbols; it is closer to how I present the proof in class, i.e., I feel that it is less technical and more approachable.
• You have grouped the proofs together with the theorem statements; I am ambivalent about that choice (I think it has advantages and disadvantages); I could imagine other editors strongly prefering one way or the other.
• Your version has removed the (totally unsourced) section on examples. Some section of examples is definitely warranted in this article and definitely sourceable (I don't know about the specific content in the current article).
• I think your additional background on calculus is a nice idea.
• Because I have dilly-dallied so long in responding to you, there have been some changes in the article; especially, there has been the addition by Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction of a new (sourced) section 'Variations in terminology', based on discussion on the article talk-page. I think that section should certainly be included.
• There are some issues with English grammar and wording in your version; it would benefit from a copy edit by a native English speaker fluent in mathematics. I would be willing to do this, but I would wait until it the last minute (i.e., until you are otherwise ready to go).

I hope that these comments are useful; please let me know if there is any other way I can help. All the best, --JBL (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll. Our current article is somewhat disorganized. That is why I was trying to wrap into two different theorems, each has a background, statement, and proofs. About the proofs, should we ask more opinions since I rewrote them from the given citation? For the grammar problem, I could count on you, as long as we make it less technical, instead of solely hieroglyphics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Wondering about $\mathbb {N} _{0}$

Hi, I just saw your edit from the other day replacing $\mathbb {N} _{0}$ with $\mathbb {N}$, and I was wondering about your comment: why is it "a terrible notation that no one should use?" The previous $\mathbb {Z} _{\geq 0}$ is much less appealing to me than $\mathbb {N} _{0}$, plus I have the impression the latter is very common (no stats, just feels...). Thanks, o_andras (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi o_andras, thanks for your message. As soon as I submitted that edit summary I thought "oh that was a bit too strident", but it was too late to tone it down -- sorry about that.

There are large communities of people for whom $\mathbb {N}$ always means the positive integers, and also large communities of people for whom $\mathbb {N}$ always means the nonnegative integers (as described at Natural number); maybe there are also people who go both ways, I'm not sure. For the first group of people the notation $\mathbb {N} _{0}$ has only one thing it could mean, but it's never used by the second group, and its meaning is not transparent for them. The notation $\mathbb {Z} _{\geq 0}$ is clunky but has the virtue that its meaning is completely transparent, regardless of one's attitude about $\mathbb {N}$. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

All good, I understand. I'm in the "$\mathbb {N}$ includes zero but make that explicit to everyone else" camp. :) Might be better to revert to $\mathbb {Z} _{\geq 0}$, then? It's the most explicit, as you say. --o_andras (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @O andras, okay, we belong to the same tribe :). At present it seems to me like the article is consistent in using $\mathbb {N}$ for the nonnegative integers, so the one copy of $\mathbb {N} _{0}$ to represent the nonnegative integers was incongruous, and likewise one single copy of $\mathbb {Z} _{\geq 0}$ for the same set would be incongruous. Personally I try to avoid making edits like swapping an entire article from one reasonable notation to another reasonable notation (but that needn't be binding on anyone else), in the spirit of MOS:FORMULA and MOS:STYLERET. The virtue of the ambiguity of $\mathbb {N}$ is that I think everyone realizes it has two possible meanings (and what they are), so as long as it's explained somewhere which choice has been made, the reader should be okay. --JBL (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Please explain

Hello, I just saw that you reverted my edit on Rubik's Cube. Can you tell me why you did that? -Lex Luthor :) — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

oh and I forgot to @ you; @JayBeeEll. Lex Luthor :) 16:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Lexical Ambuiguity Fixer, I reverted your edit because it was unsourced and because I do not find it plausible that the misspelling "Rubix" is in widespread use, as represented by reliable sources on the topic. --JBL (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I see. Lex Luthor :) 18:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

OOPS

Sorry for this Facepalm - DVdm (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, it happens! --JBL (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Poor edit

Astonishing. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed that you reverted my addition to the Sequence article. In what way is it a poor edit? Kevincook13 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kevincook13: Instead of separately reaching out to every editor who reverts one of your edits on their individual talk-pages, it would be better to put discussion on the article talk-page, which is the appropriate venue to establish a consensus about edits to an article. The short answer to your question is that I find Deacon Vorbis's comment on a different edit to be a compelling description of this edit as well, as well as of the general pattern of your editing. I am willing to discuss further, but only in the appropriate venue, Talk:Sequence. --JBL (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: I was hoping that you would explain why you thought that my edit was poor. I can explain why I think it is needed. It clarifies meaning. Currently, we begin our article by stating that a sequence is an enumerated collection. Later, in a section discussing formal definitions, we state that a sequence is a function without explaining why we defined the term differently at the beginning of the article. Such poor editing confuses meaning. Kevincook13 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kevincook13: Which part of the sentence I am willing to discuss further, but only in the appropriate venue, Talk:Sequence was unclear to you? --JBL (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll The part I don't understand is what you mean by discuss further. You haven't discussed my edit at all, except to state that it was poor. One word of characterization is hardly a discussion. I expect that when one editor reverts another editors work, the revert will include an explanation. You failed to explain the reason you reverted my edit, when you reverted it. You have also failed to provide an explanation here on your talk page. Further, I don't see one on the Sequence talk page, and I have no faith that I will see one there in the future. I believe that you don't have one, that you are willing to frankly admit. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

• There's a certain beauty to the, um, sequence: I am willing to discuss further, but only in the appropriate venue ... I was hoping that you would explain ... I am willing to discuss further, but only in the appropriate venue ... The part I don't understand is what you mean by discuss further. EEng 23:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  The only beautiful thing about this sequence was its finitude. --JBL (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Socking

@Izno and DrKay: sorry I can't (for uninteresting reasons) file an SPI at this moment, but you both reverted ~2025-37349-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few weeks ago and they're now clearly back as ImperialHouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). But also this is probably the same person as Unfriendnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): compare vs and vs (I'll file an SPI in a couple days when I have the chance if you don't have the opportunity to act on it -- and happy new year!) --JBL (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I was tagged in this. i don't know either accounts, and If I reverted something, I am sorry, and I definitly did not mean to revert something that was already reverted. I believe you are referencing a change I made to Template:Hanoverian royal family. The reason I made that edit, was because When making a list of royals, there titles in that royal family should be used. Alessandra de Osma is her name, but in regards to the Hanoverian royal family, she is Princess Christian of Hanover. This is because her husband is Prince Christian of Hanover, and in the German tradition, a wife takes her husbands title in entirety. ImperialHouse (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. DrKay (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! --JBL (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Umm...

...wow, thank you ~ Lindsay ~2026-52451-8 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@LindsayH and ~2026-52451-8: You're welcome! There have been a bunch of people in the 60-69% range at admin election, and I thought all of them would make good administrators, but you're the one whose failure to be elected was in my opinion the biggest disappointment -- it just seemed when I was reviewing candidates that you'd be great at it. (I am not keyed-in enough to have a sense of whether this view is widely shared/to offer concrete advice about it -- just offering a drive-by thought.) --JBL (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

The three pages I added to the Set disambiguation page are all about distinct concepts in mathematics, all referred to by the same term: "set". Kevincook13 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

No, they are specific kinds of sets (just as open sets, closed sets, partially ordered sets, etc. are). This is a very straightforward application of WP:PTM: disambiguation pages are not for partial title matches like this. If you are inclined to respond with anything that contains the words "general audience" or "academics" or equivalent formulations, or that includes any version of the idea that "set" really means "finite set" or vice-versa, please just skip it and to save me the trouble of removing your message. --JBL (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

That term "set" is the issue. Used alone, one cannot be certain exactly what concept is being referenced, even if we specify that it is being used in mathematics. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about the mathematical concept "set" is the article Set (mathematics). It is the unique article on Wikipedia about that topic. The other articles you added are not about the mathematical concept "set" any more than the article Open set is, they are about specific families, kinds, or types of sets, and this situation is precisely what WP:PTM addresses. I know that you dislike the article Set (mathematics) and object in some obscure way to the situation that it is what it is, but that is completely irrelevant. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The article should be about one definite and distinct concept, but it isn't. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I know that you dislike the article Set (mathematics) and object in some obscure way to the situation that it is what it is, but that is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. --JBL (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

i noticed that you didn't disagree. Kevincook13 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

For the complete avoidance of doubt: I have been attempting to be polite to you, but your position is utterly unfounded, and in fact completely ridiculous. Almost nothing you have said in the various discussions where I have observed you is coherent, let alone correct. This latest angle is so transparently wrong it makes me wonder if you are engaged in some complicated kind of performance art or parody. --JBL (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Note to future self: . --JBL (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor and the information provided at RS/N

Just wanted to say thanks for the helpful information you provided at RS/N! I dislike leaving things on a bad note, so I will offer you this tea as a peace offering in the hopes of leaving things on a positive note and wish you well with your Wikipedia endeavours! All the best! 11WB (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@11WB: Thanks for the message; sorry for editing while grumpy. --JBL (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries! I realise my comment regarding the word you used could've been read as sarcasm. It was a genuine observation on my part, but I saw pretty quickly how it could be read as obtuse, so I apologise for that. The entire discussion was unnecessary in all honesty. Had I taken the time to find those older posts, I would have had the answer without needing to take up editor time. The RfC you linked genuinely was helpful! 11WB (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Contesting Removal of Reduced Primorials from Primorials page

This article was removed after being up for almost 2 weeks. The reason cited for removal was: "Rv uncited, presumably original research; see WP:OR". This reason is empirically false, and is without merit.

WP:OR states:

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published. By this, the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that editors could find a published, reliable source to support every bit of material. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that one is not adding original research, one must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. The prohibition against original research means that it must be possible for editors to find a reliable, published source that directly supports any given bit of material. Uncited material does not automatically violate this policy because it can be verifiable even though it is not cited. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because editors could find a reliable source that directly supports this sentence if they tried to.

The topic of Reduced Primorials, showing their construction and use, resides in existing published materials, in English, in reliable sources.

See the two published articles below:

On The Infinity of Twin Primes and other K-tuples

https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/867

https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/867/678 (pdf; pgs 4756-58)

Derivation|Correction of Hardy-Littlewood Twin Prime Constant using Prime Generator Theory (PGT)

https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/1099

https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/1099/837 (pdf)

Therefore, even those these citations are my own papers, they meet the criteria of being published, in peer reviewed reliable sources, that still exist. And most importantly, the work cited in them is 100% mathematically valid and undisputed.

Thus, I request the reversion of this article be undone, and it be restored to its original location. If citations need to be included, please advise the necessary editing to include them. Jzakiya (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jzakiya: Sorry but these papers are obviously not reliable sources (they come down on the wrong side of nearly every bullet-point at WP:SCHOLARSHIP), but even if they were the addition would not be appropriate because of WP:DUE. Since I have no doubt you will not just take my word for this, I invite you to open a discussion at either WP:RSN or WT:WPM with the following neutral question, or some reasonable variant thereof: "Are the papers https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/867/678 and https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/1099/837 reliable sources for this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primorial&diff=1344333936&oldid=1343010923 addition to the article Primorial? This was disputed by User:JayBeeEll, who suggested I post here for additional opinions."

Finally, while it is not relevant to the content questions (WP:OR/WP:DUE), you should also take care to respect the behavioral guideline WP:PROMO. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I assume you didn't read the papers and see how the topic of reduced primorials was developed and used in them. The only argument you make is to subjectively question the journal the papers appear in as a proxy to not evaluating the topic in the papers on its own basis. It would be more helpful to explain, mathematically, how the topic of reduced primorials does not merit inclusion as an expanded understanding to the general topic of primorials, which was the sole purpose of its inclusion. They have a very important role, conceptually and computationally in number theory, and people should know what they are.

I will raise the question of their restored inclusion on the discussion groups you suggested. Jzakiya (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. --JBL (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

As you suggested, I created a topic of discussion on this here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Re-inclusion_of_Reduced_Primorials_within_Primorials_page Jzakiya (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

P=NP article

Hi JayBeeEll: Lede should be a summary of the article and not introduce material which is not first covered in the main body of the article according to WP:Lede. Could the article be brought into the Lede format consistent with MOS as I tried to do yesterday? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi ErnestKrause, neither of your edits had any discernable relationship to lead-body coherence that I can see. I would be happy to discuss this in more depth, but may I propose we do it at the article talk-page Talk:P versus NP problem so that other editors of the page will also have the opportunity to weigh in? --JBL (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it there. I'll look forward to your comments when you have time to get around to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. --JBL (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

elementary symmetric polynomial reversion

hey, thanks for reverting my bogus edit. I spent the past x months working with fermionic creation/annihilation operators and it didnt occur to me to consider the terms in the expansion where X_i occurs more than once. I guess what I wrote there could have been salvaged by adding "...and assuming X_i anticommutes with itself for all i..." but that is really not a very noteworthy property. My bad! Dvojka110 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Dvojka110: ha, I was wondering what happened, that's a funny background. No worries at all, of course! Happy editing, --JBL (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Weak Base article

Hi, thanks for fixing up things on the Weak Base article. I did my best to fix certain things, but the use of a times symbol seemingly as a variable really threw me. I thought it was a different variable. Glad the parsing issues have been resolved. SailorKuu (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@SailorKuu: No problem, and thanks for your attempt to fix it. When I come across something on a Wikipedia article that seems really nonsensical (like the use of × as a variable or badly broken formulas) I look through the history at the last few edits -- often it turns out that it's the result of a relatively piece of vandalism (or, in this case, someone using a script and being negligent about checking the output) and the right thing to do is just restore a previous edit. --JBL (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Notification of proposed decision

Hi JayBeeEll, in the open Maghreb arbitration case, which you have commented on, a proposed decision has been posted. You can review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

certainly not

I am sorry, what is the problem here? 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

"G.H. Hardy" is not the last name of an author (ditto the other). I have since cleaned the whole section up. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither was "G.H. Hardy and E.W. Wright" a last name. Undoing my edit was unnecessary. Thanks for the cleanup. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on Three fair coin flips tree diagram

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback on my tree diagram, I've implemented your tips into the code.

TealComet (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, TealComet, it is certainly much more legible now. My other observation/criticism/opinion about your figure is that I am not sure that the meaning of the numerical labels is self-explanatory to someone who doesn't already understand probability trees; I think it would be much more common to have the labels 1/2 on the edges (rather than the vertices), as in File:Probability_tree_diagram.svg. Happy editing, --JBL (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Euler number/characteristic confusion

Hi! I saw you reverted my adding of Euler characteristic to the "not to be confused with" section of the Euler numbers page, saying that it is a deeply implausible confusion. I don't think I agree—in fact I made this edit after myself being confused and wondering if there is some connection between Euler numbers and "Euler numbers" as I have heard from others. I have seen other cohomological invariants being formally related to power series expansions (like the Todd class) so I did not think it was unreasonable for Euler numbers to be related to "Euler numbers/characteristics." What do you think? AndyrooP (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi AndyrooP, can I suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Euler numbers? I don't find this especially compelling but rather than the two of us disagree it would be more natural to hear from other editors and see what they think. (We could also solicit additional views at WT:WPM or WP:3O.) --JBL (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I went ahead and added discussion to Talk:Euler numbers. AndyrooP (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear Gerda, thank you for the reminder and for maintaining this lovely tradition! Kind regards, --JBL (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello JayBeeEll,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you JBL (wrestler)?

BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Lol, no, sorry to disappoint. (I am also not a Philipino jurist, Japanese sports league, academic journal, or American manufacturer of audio equipment). --JBL (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

New chess piece images

I wanted to discuss those new chess piece images I put up. Sorry this took so long, I had other commitments. Sammy2012 (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

No apology necessary. As I recall, you made some additions that I objected to, based on WP:OR/WP:UGC. What are your thoughts? --JBL (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

So about those ferz and wazir images in particular...

Those images are sourced from The Chess Variant Pages. You said that it's not a reliable source and that's why you removed them - but I wish to make a counterargument. There are already several articles on this website that use The Chess Variant Pages as a source - and I believe if those can pass muster, these images should too. Sammy2012 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sammy2012, thanks for your message. I don't think I'm the one who reverted you on ferz and wazir specifically, but I'm happy to talk with you about it. It is my longstanding opinion that The Chess Variant Pages is basically just a webforum, blog or other self-published source for purposes of reliability. The relevant Wikipedia guidelines are WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:DUE. Such sources can be useful for some things (especially in the context of WP:EXPERTSPS), but in my opinion the statement "the symbol for the fairy chess piece X is Y" (or even the claim "the fairy chess piece X has a standard symbol") is pretty much automatically dubious because "symbols for fairy chess pieces" only barely have an existence beyond a very small number of hobbyists. I think it is unlikely that you will succeed in getting me to change my longstanding view on this point. However, it is not actually necessary for you to change my opinion in order to make edits, it is just necessary for there to be a consensus of editors. The best ways to get such a consensus would be to open discussions in a venue like an article talk-page (if it's just one article) or WP:Third opinion (if a discussion has only involved two editors and they disagree), or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess (if you want to solicit the views of editors who specifically edit chess articles) or WP:RSN (if you want to solicit the views of editors who specifically are interested in the question of what makes a source reliable). I would be grateful if you would ping me in any such discussion that you started.

(As a side-note: the specific argument "X is done on some Wikipedia page, so it should also be done on this one" is not generally regarded as very convincing in Wikipedia discussions, as Wikipedia articles get to be the way they are by all sorts of random processes, and most of them have deficiencies of one kind or another. It's possible that some uses of the Chess Variant Pages that currently exist I would have objected to if I had been aware of them, that some are used in ways that I wouldn't have objected to but for reasons that don't apply here, or many other scenarios.) --JBL (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a topic on WikiProject Chess's talk page. Sammy2012 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello JayBeeEll:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Just as a matter of interest...

Sretan Božić does actually mean Merry Christmas! There's even a song of that name. :-) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Laterthanyouthink: Thanks; I don't spend too much time worrying about the truth value of statements by people who have forfeited their right to participate in the community, but it's nice to know that (as usual) Vb doesn't know what he's talking about. --JBL (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes - same, but I only looked it up yesterday because I was curious! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Why was my edit wrong?

You did not tell why it was wrong? That does not help me. I explained my edit and was somehow sure it was correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Step_function&diff=1368716426&oldid=1368647267&variant=en Clemens Tolboom (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

ouch .. re-reading the full page I now see I was wrong .. sorry about the edit I did ;-( Clemens Tolboom (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Clemens Tolboom:, thanks for your message. I'm glad you were able to figure it out yourself. No apology necessary, it happens to everyone sooner or later! Happy editing, --JBL (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2026 Backlog drive

September 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2026, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin at a particularly important time for NPP. The backlog has now passed 30,000 unreviewed articles, a level that has been described in current NPP discussions as exceptionally high and potentially difficult to overcome through normal reviewing alone. Backlog drives are one of the few measures that have historically produced a noticeable reduction in the backlog, so the participation of as many active patrollers as possible will matter this month. If you can review during September, please make articles your priority. Every article that is reviewed is a meaningful reduction in the backlog. With the queue at its current size, even a relatively small increase in the number of articles each patroller reviews can add up to a substantial difference over the course of the month. This is a hybrid drive, so redirect reviewing is still included. Redirects can be a useful way for newer patrollers to get comfortable with NPP and can help people build up to reviewing articles. However, the main goal of this drive is to tackle the article backlog, and experienced patrollers are particularly encouraged to spend as much of their available reviewing time on articles as they can. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. If you have been thinking about doing more NPP, this is an especially good month to jump in. Whether you can review a few pages or hundreds, every review helps. And if you are already an active patroller, please consider whether you can put in some additional time during September to help bring the backlog back under control. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

A matter of opinion...

In this edit to the article Field (mathematics) you gave the edit summary '"uncited, uninteresting if true, and certainly undue and inappropriate in this spot"'. I agree with your edit, and would have done the same if I'd got there before you, and I also agree with all of your edit summary except for "uninteresting if true". I actually did find it interesting years ago when I discovered that an axiom which is always included everywhere where a field is defined is in fact redundant. JBW (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, yes, it is a matter of opinion. Maybe this will also be of interest: Some years ago I acquired a book on mathematics education that consisted of eight lectures by one G. St. L. Carson, delivered in 1912 or 1913. The first sets out the theoretical foundations of mathematics: there is a long discussion of the importance of understanding the distinction between postulates and axioms, and another about the distinction between deductions and proofs. Then the reader gets a list of The Three Functions of Mathematics: apparently, starting with a collection of “postulates, the truth of which is no concern of mathematics”, they are to perform deductions via the use of logical axioms, “to ascertain whether the set of postulates is consistent”, and finally to demonstrate that the chosen postulates are irredundant. --JBL (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Science hyphen fiction

I added the notification at WPM but, because I decided that Applied Mathematics is arguably not the same grammatical structure, thought it better to just delete it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I know, I just think it’s good practice to explain where I can from, as I was showing up to opine on a talk page of an article I’d never edited. “Applied mathematics exam” or “applied mathematics degree” are close if maybe not exactly the same. Personally I use the constructions “a type-A object” and “an object of type B” a lot in my professional writing consistently, but “science fiction convention” does not feel parallel. (In the more informal context of writing comments on talk-pages, I think I use all three of “talk page”, “talk-page”, and “talkpage”.) --JBL (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

P.S. @JBW and JMF: from now on only editors with three-letter signatures beginning with “J” should post on this page ;) --JBL (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, since that's been brought up I may as well mention that JMF you are eligible for membership of the Wikipedian TLA club, if you wish to join. However, JBL, I'm afraid you aren't. The club has very strict rules, and having a username that sounds like a TLA but isn't doesn't count, nor does having a signature which makes it look as though your username is a TLA but it isn't. Sorry, but rules are rules. JBW (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

"Rules is rules" Tch! The kids of today! they've just never been learned how to talk proper. I blame the parents!

FWIW, I started a similar TLA club a few years ago but it never got off the ground - never attracted more than two or three editors. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The club has very strict rules, and having a username that sounds like a TLA but isn't doesn't count, nor does having a signature which makes it look as though your username is a TLA but it isn't. Tragic :(. I have always regretted that User:JBL was taken when I joined. --JBL (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

JMF was also taken, by someone in fr.wikipedia. But they only ever did one edit and hadn't been active in over five years. So I put in a request to pre-empt (or supplant ow whatever it is) and succeeded in securing it. If that doesn't work, dump manure or tomatoes on the steps of the town hall until 'they' give in.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2026 (UTC) The artist formerly known as user:John Maynard Friedman

On ASK.fm, don’t keep going back to the previous page.

Hello,

I reverted the ASK.fm page to Daniel’s latest version, but you are repeatedly undoing the edits. Daniel Case has already reviewed and approved the current information and placed the page under protection in its latest form.

The reason for this is that a particular visitor has repeatedly engaged in vandalism on the page, attempting to remove existing information. As a result, Daniel Case protected the page for one year. The visitor I am referring to is the owner of an ASK.fm clone application called ventto.me, and they repeatedly make similar changes wherever they are able to edit, seemingly attempting to undermine the existing ASK.fm brand and attract users to their own application:

https://ventto.me/a/cmu3x3qsw00vzfg9nb07shi6r

Their actions do not appear to be motivated by a good-faith attempt to improve the article.

Furthermore, ASK.fm is not currently a newsworthy website in the sense that its activities receive significant coverage from reliable independent media. Even when the site shut down, the coverage was limited to only a few non-corporate blog websites. Therefore, expecting major corporate news organizations or established technology publications to report extensively on its revival does not seem reasonable, especially when the site's closure itself did not receive substantial coverage.

Additionally, according to Wikipedia's policies, a company's own statements can be used as sources in certain circumstances, even when independent sources are unavailable. The current information does not claim that the new company is a continuation of the original ASK.fm. It simply states that it is a revival project that acquired the trademark rights to the ASK.fm brand.

The information regarding the closure of the original website also remains in the article as part of its historical background.

If you check the trademark records through Trademark Elite UK, you can see that the ASK.fm trademark was transferred to another company in 2025, and the trademark protection was subsequently extended for another ten years, until 2034. In addition, the existing ASK.fm company was liquidated during the same month in which the trademark was transferred:

https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Askfm-Europe-Limited-551873

Therefore, I believe the current version of the page accurately reflects the available information without making the claim that the new ASK.fm is the same corporate entity as the original website. Frutiesd79 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I am leaving this here just to serve as a note to myself to revist the large amount of website hijacking/usurpation/spam that I have seen in the last week. Aside from this case, there is also Special:Contributions/Searchinternet121 on AltaVista, from September 12, from 9/9, and from 9/8. --JBL (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)