User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/2022/

Apologies if you think I was uncivil

I'm not sure whether you thought me templating you was WP:UNCIVIL or condescending (per WP:DTR). If so, I'm very sorry and I apologize. I was hoping to reduce the temperature -- there's more than one experienced editor who is involved (at this point), and I'm sure we'll come to a good conclusion. Don't feel like you have to carry the burden yourself -- IMO, that's not good for you or WP. That's all I was trying to say. Sorry again if I offended you. — hike395 (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thanks for your kind message. You're right of course that I should have stopped one revert earlier than I did. I'm sure no offense was meant, and none was taken -- I was just a bit grouchy :). Separately, thanks for linking the multiple past discussions at RSN -- it will be convenient to have them mentioned in one place, rather than on separate article talk-pages. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

For having to do this. Because of this and then this.

I have dealt with it here. He's already responded here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, Thanks, I understand. I appreciate the effort you devoted to the review. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My mods re falling factorials.

I do think that the lead is too purely technical and thus hospitable only to those who are fairly sophisticated mathematically. This is Wikipedia, not a college text. That's why I believe that such a simple example is appropriate in the lead to illustrate and to motivate the topic. I can live with its being down where you've moved it, but think it would be better back up in the lead. And compare this lead to the one about factorials. Thoughts?

As to why I changed the variable from x to m in one paragraph (only), it's because of the essentially universal convention that variable names near the end of the alphabet are reals (or complex), and integers are represented by letters from the middle of the alphabet. That one paragraph is entirely about integers, so it calls for a conventionally integer-looking variable name.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Invisible Oranges at RSN

Hi, you asked me why I needed Invisible_Oranges accepted as reliable source. Could you have a look at my answer and maybe help me with that. many th in advance.

here's the link: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Invisible_Oranges

H8eternal (talk) 09:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded there. --JBL (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Dot Product

I agree with your revert.

I guess its inconsistent to use the triple equal sign for some math articles and not others and put arrows over vectors.

Is that why you reverted my edit?

I have not edited any math articles until now so it would be nice to know your thoughts on this matter. ScientistBuilder (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScientistBuilder: Thanks for your message. Since you initiated the discussion at WT:WPM and I responded there (and now several other people have as well), may I suggest to continue it there? (My thoughts are captured by XOR'easter's comment.) --JBL (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello JayBeeEll

I left a message at Talk:Kirin (chess) for you — Preceding unsigned comment added by ISaveNewspapers (talk • contribs) 04:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Affine symmetric group

The article Affine symmetric group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Affine symmetric group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiHow revert

Why did you revert my edits for the page 'WikiHow'? I was intending to make it such that if you click on it, it takes you to WikiHow, already signed in to your Wikimedia account. Can you please make a link so it works instead of reverting my edits? Username142857 (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Pascal_triangle_compositions.svg

Hi JayBeeEll, Re your reversion of this image, what other issues are there besides the size of the blobs? I can make the blobs larger. Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 01:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi cmglee, thanks for your message. Here were the reasons I reverted:

• It was very difficult to tell (even when the image was expanded) the difference between adjacent dots in separate blobs versus adjacent dots in the same blob.
• The word "partitions" is wrong: one might refer to the parts or blocks or ... of a composition, but not to its partitions.

Much less importantly (i.e., this didn't have anything to do with my reversion, but I might as well complain about it while you're here), I find the choice of a sans serif font and the cramped spacing around the = sign in the axis labels unattractive -- compare with the choices made by LaTeX and the {{math}} template. --JBL (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've used "parts".
• I've increased the whitespace betweeen "parts".
• I've changed it to Times and increased whitespace around plus signs (I presume you meant "+"). I don't have as much precise control over SVG formatting as in LaTeX.

Redrawn

Thanks for your clear actionable points. I've updated it as on the right and addressed the points in your response above. Is it ok now? (Can you please ping me in your reply?) Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 21:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cmglee:, I've moved your bulleted responses outside of my comment, I hope you don't mind. When I expand the image to full size, it's now completely clear which dots go together and which don't. When it's unexpanded, it's much better now than it was before, although I still have to squint a bit at some of them. Thanks also for changing the wording and font! All the best, JBL (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and no problem, JBL. I'll restore the images. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. dwc lr (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note to future self: this was about [1]. --JBL (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarification

I am sorry but this message is unhelpful and is worsening the situation.

I haven't said anything that wasnt warranted. It is absolutely correct to call out the distortion done by this user because gazillions of explanations dedicated to his edits haven't worked and he is making false claims such as "source states that the RNU is banned in 4 municipalities of the 20,000+ in Russia" as if the source mentions his "20,000" figure or claims the group was ever registered. But he is only doubling down with his poor comprehension skills.

You can already see the wall of texts being dumped by this user only to defy WP:RS, WP:OR and his rampant falsification of sources. He admits he is here for settling social media scores than building encyclopedia, yet he has the nerve to claim that I am engaging in agenda pushing.

That's why I think you should remove this message as it can be deemed as supportive of his disruption by him and encourage him to double down further. TolWol56 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@TolWol56: What is worsening the situation is that both of you are making personal attacks. It is not warranted, it is a straightforward violation of WP:NPA. You should stop. They should stop. You should discuss what sources say, and what are the best sources; so should they. If you are finding them frustrating (understandable!) then you should spend 24 hours doing something less frustrating and respond later, in a deliberate and non-personalized way. There is no rush (particularly with the article locked). Behave better; in the best case, they will behave better also and you can constructively improve the article, and in the worst case, they will continue behaving badly and it will be really obvious to administrators which of you needs to be blocked. --JBL (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. TolWol56 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Deescalation

I'm pretty angry right now. That's unusual. I don't know why your stupid edits annoyed me so much, but as it is, I'm looking for an apology. Dan88888 (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This comment of yours at ANI made me giggle: Your comment is, like, the Platonic ideal of looking for reasons to relitigate a discussion whose outcome you didn't like. Curbon7 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Curbon7: Hey thanks! Sometimes all one can do is laugh .... --JBL (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikispecies comment

Hello, I was wondering if you would care to retract your pot & kettle comment, for instance:

• if the vernacular name is "not a thing", are you saying that about 3/4 of the length of wikispecies:Panthera tigris is made up of things that do not exist?
• if the vernacular name is "not a thing", would you say the body of Japanese mammalogists who produced doi:10.11238/mammalianscience.58.S1, under the auspices of the Mammal Society of Japan spent their time doing something that does not exist, and that all Japanese (and indeed many English) wiki pages have as their titles things that do not exist?
• how is having page names and taxonomy that use solely scientific names "trying to set up a system around" something else?

Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not know if your difficulty understanding my comment stems from the inherent ambiguity of language, limitations in your grasp of English, or simply your unwillingness to listen to people who disagree with you, but in any case your approach is sufficiently abrasive that I have no desire to discuss it further with you. —JBL (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfect Euler Brick

I am wondering what was wrong with the proof that a perfect Euler brick does not exist article I cited. ScientistBuilder (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ResearchGate is basically Facebook — anyone can post anything there. To support the claim that someone has solved a long-standing open problem, there should be a publication with verification by other mathematicians and experts, or good-quality secondary sources writing about it. —JBL (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Belovedeagle / User:JayBeeEll. Thank you. Belovedeagle (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was stupid. —JBL (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Binomial theorem edit

Good evening. I saw that you edited my correction on the binomial theorem. Currently it is incorrect. For complex numbers you need to implement the generalization of the combinatory number through the Euler's Gamma function (basically how I corrected it). The paragraph indicates complex exponentials, but you are only considering natural exponentials... Which is not either Newton's theorem (or a generalization for what matters). His contribution was to extend it to complex numbers. Saks (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the current version is correct, and is (obviously) defined for all complex numbers r. Your version was also correct for most values of r (namely r not a negative integer) and in those cases reduces to the much clearer version in the article. Note in particular that the formula does not include the expression $r!$, which is where potential problems arise. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Weyl's tile argument

Thanks for redoing the math formatting at Weyl's tile argument. Somehow, I missed that page when trying to clean up the cluster of oddities around digital physics last year (discussion). I'd known of the idea, but I hadn't thought to check if we had an article devoted to it until people were yelling at me over at Talk:Planck units. (Personal insults over mathematical esoterica? Must be a day ending in -y....) It's not even that much related, since the people who talk about distance losing meaning below the Planck scale say that spacetime is foamy rather than gridlike. But whatever — at least another stub has gotten attention! XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome -- editing on my phone is very difficult, but something like that just about occupies a subway ride. I get a kick out of browsing WP:ANI to see what ridiculous and obscure things people can have huge years-long fights about (music genres! professional wrestling! train car specifications!) but it's decidedly less fun to be involved in it. I removed one of the personal attacks at Talk:Planck units, as well as some other ranting that may not strictly have violated WP:NPA but certainly had no part in any constructive conversation. --JBL (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated!

ANI is a bizarre place. In addition to the amazingly niche subject matter of the quarrels, the arguments are so often couched in quasi-legalistic jargon. The prosecutor is whoever is angriest, and the defense is whoever happens to show up. Very entertaining to watch, far less so to participate in. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Starbucks union petitions in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oakland, Pennsylvania.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your work on the Starbucks union articles!

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: Thanks! Adding to the list is a perfect procrastination activity :). -- JBL (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

RfA comment

You recently commented "Which part of WP:NPOV (a policy that concerns the content of encyclopedia articles) would you say is relevant to this discussion?". I believe any response to the affirmative is called "the Signpost letter precedent".

This is obviously a joke, but I am posting it here because I know people at the RfA generally will see the joke through the clouded eyes of contentious argument. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Ha, yes, thanks -- a reminder that no matter how stupid things are, they can always get stupider! --JBL (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

To further add to your point, consider the frontflip 🙂🙃🙂🛹 — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

IP edits

Hey JBL, I hope all is well. This is mildly awkward since you don't have email enabled and I don't want to be too public about it, but is it possible that you (very) recently logged out by accident? I came across an IP with a handful of edits that shares page overlap and some edit summary similarities with you, and I figured I'd say something in case you need to reach out to an oversighter (or in case someone is trying to joe-job you). Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs, thanks for your message. As well as can be expected while in the midst of final exam grading :). Yes, you're right, that was me. "By accident" is not precisely accurate -- I've been trying to cut back on my WP usage during certain hours and have installed a script that auto-logs me out; but then I still find myself wanting to do things during those hours and can only do them logged out :/. I don't personally feel strongly about having them oversighted, but if you think that's good practice, can you point me in the direction of a list of such people? Thanks again for checking, and sorry for wasting some of your time this way. (I do think your message should help motivate me to stop cheating on myself, so that's a win, hopefully.) JBL (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether you want to get rid of the IP edits depends on your threat model; IP disclosure generally gives away your ISP and rough (~city-level, possibly less accurate depending on country and connection type) geolocation, and not much more, although that can of course contribute to people figuring out more about who you are in real life, or to them trying to do dodgy stuff with your computer (although that's a very marginal risk). If you don't care about that, then there's probably nothing to do. If you do care about that, WP:RFO has guidance for contacting oversighters. One thing to consider either way is that the socking policy generally prohibits editing the same pages with undisclosed alts (and by extension undisclosed IPs) – people tend to view that as particularly problematic in internal discussions. I obviously don't think you made these edits with the intention of evading scrutiny, but in the interest of avoiding accidental drama, I would recommend either always disclosing your account when editing logged-out (assuming you don't care about making the connection to your IP) or switching from the logout script to something like this browser add-on, which still provides an additional hurdle to editing, but mitigates the potential privacy and policy risks of logging out. Good luck with the grading – and the cutting back. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Thank you very much for your further thoughts. I've gone ahead and belatedly claimed the one edit in discussion space, in order to avoid the impression of evading scrutiny. I'll think about the oversight question. I already use (and circumvent) a similar browser add-on; I'll take a look at that one to see if it might lock me down better. Grading finished (finally) this afternoon -- and boy am I ever ready for summer break :). Hope all's well with you. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Gerda Arendt, thank you for the reminder that I am no longer young ;). Kind regards and happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Show Me the Source if You Please?

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I did not see any reliable source for that assertion, and you do? 69.112.129.186 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC) You added a bunch of garbage tags on cited sentences. If you think the citation at the end of the sentence doesn't support the sentence, there are tags that are appropriate to that ({{fv}}, {{better source?}}, etc.); but your edit summary (and your behavior elsewhere) was pretty clear that you were not making such a claim. JBL (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Thanks. Although that was not what I asked for your attitude shows that you might not be impartial to this situation, the topic I was asking about hasn't been addressed, you have focused and targeted me on my other edits - seemingly. The sentence that we should be focusing on includes words like "suspected" and " ... According to rumours at the time, which persisted for many years, Henry VI was killed by a blow to the back of the head ..." which seemingly on their face indicate the lack of documentation/references. The words "suspected" and "rumours" are part of the article - does that need to be in the article? Wouldn't the execution of King Henry - if it can be proven, require an act, an order, or a death warrant issued by the new king, and would that be what we should be making our focus? Sorry if this seems unreasonably pedantic. This is justified in that here the page shows a lack of documentation and the particular sentence is surely an opinion. My tag is not the only tag stating that. 69.112.129.186 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC) That you think the tag you used is appropriate for this situation is a clear indication that you lack competence to be tagging articles. Your other recent edits show similar but worse problems. Since you began this by announcing your unwillingness to accept anything I have to say on the matter, I'm not going to waste my time in a detailed dissection of your confusion; but let me invite you to go somewhere like WP:TEAHOUSE and have some other people tell you what they think of your edit. --JBL (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Big of you. Thanks for the wonderful invitation. Keep up the good work. I'm sure I appreciate the effort. I'm so unwilling, and that's interesting how you managed to perceive this through the computer. I made that announcement, and you brilliantly refused to waste any time on it. Hope you learn a little patience though, I would think that could be of help to anyone. I'll go on my merry way, though, I'm not waiting for you. 69.112.129.186 (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense redirects

Hello, JayBeeEll,

I saw your comment at a recent RFD discussion about some nonsense redirects created by blocked editor Xayahrainie43. You mentioned that their other redirects should be nominated for deletion and I saw at Special:Contributions/Xayahrainie43 that they created quite a few more if you wanted to tag them and bring them to RFD. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, according to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 11#Unicode 0, some of these redirect might be useful. I don't know enough about Unicode to be able distinguish useful from nonsense redirects, maybe you do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello JayBeeEll/Archives/2022,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 819 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 859 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Closure (topology) notation

Thanks for reverting me here. The overbar notation for "closure" appears to be less established (on Wikipedia, at least) than I had thought (it wasn't even listed on overline). IpseCustos (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@IpseCustos: Thanks for your message. I'm surprised it wasn't listed at overline, thanks for adding it. I personally think that this is one of those notations that's extremely common in particular contexts -- certainly if I were in a topology seminar and someone put a line over a set, that's what I would expect it to mean -- but since the same symbols are used with other meanings (and because Wikipedia has a more general audience than a topology seminar) it's important to set the context. Of course it may end up being a moot point, depending how the AfD goes! -- JBL (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again, and thanks for removing the multiplicative inverse as one interpretation of overline! I think that it is important to avoid "canonicalizing" ad-hoc or overly specialist definitions on Wikipedia, which I grudgingly admit applies to the (unlinkable) overline-as-closure notation just as much as it does, say, to Knuth's usage of the overline to indicate negation of a digit in balanced ternary. IpseCustos (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

ARS

There are a zillion editors identified as members of ARS is FUD. I'd be surprised if there were 7 regulars who follow the board, including anti-ARS members like MrsSnoozyTurtle. ARS really is a favorite boogeyman and distraction from the core issue: Following the 80/20 Rule (which holds everywhere on Wikipedia), we can say that probably 20% of the users at AfD are creating 80% of the AfDs. And of those 20%, the 80/20 Rule also holds, so you end up with a small number of users creating a large percentage of AfDs. Perhaps the top 10 users creating a significant percentage of all AfDs. Who are these users? Are they doing a good job deciding? That's a more important question the community is not addressing. Instead there is fixating on ARS which maybe is involved in 1 out of every 500 AfDs and has a Keep success rate of maybe 50% involving a handful of editors. ARS was always a teaching tool and demonstration of proper BEFORE, it does not have a material impact on the flood of AfDs. -- GreenC 18:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should have read to the end of the sentence that you quoted! --JBL (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2022 (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/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 9, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrats

The article currently presents no source to back this up. Rather than revert me, I suggest you find a source for it. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

A cn tag for a sky-is-blue claim like this is the stupidest of all possible outcomes (certainly stupider than just removing the unnecessary infobox line, for example). If you want to propose some non-stupid alternative, I would be happy to consider it. --JBL (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Rather than calling me an idiot, you could just do something productive with your day. Toa Nidhiki05 20:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Obviously JBL was discourteous; but equally obviously, that is pretty much a sky-is-blue matter. The Dixiecrats were the hard-core racists, the unregenerate white supremacists defiant against a nation which was slowly getting conscious of these matters. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

That they were exceedingly racist is beyond dispute. That they are far of the far-right is not, and should be easily findable if it's so apparent. There is no harm in asking for citations. Toa Nidhiki05 20:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not call you an idiot. (And, for the avoidance of doubt: I do not think that you are an idiot.) I think that having a cn tag on an obviously true statement is an incredibly stupid situation and therefore I think putting the tag on was ill-advised (and therefore I reverted). If you put forward a proposal to remove the "ideology" entry on the infobox until such time as it is explicitly supported by a citation, I will support that. If you put forward a proposal to change "far right" to something that is already supported by a citation, I will probably support that, too. (Separately, I think attaching your argument to the inane ravings of the IP is a poor strategy if you hope to convince anyone of anything.) --JBL (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrat

[2] I think this editor may want or require an RfC. I've listed citations and evidence but no consensus has been reached. Would you be up to helping us on this? DN (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Darknipples: I'll try to take a look some time this week. --JBL (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

[3] We have some comments now changing the hatted discussion. I do not know if editors are purposefully ignoring the the indicators that show how Dixiecrats fall into the Far Right political spectrum or if it is truly just lack of attention to these facts. Either way I am trying to AGF. DN (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello JayBeeEll/Archives/2022,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 11090 articles, as of 12:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, 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. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Why the jump to RFC

I started up the RFC, as it appeared (at Monarchy of Canada) we were heading towards changing 1 of the 14 redirects. That would've caused a potential mess, so I figured it would be best to go forward & get as wide as possible input, for all 14 redirects. Keeping in mind, that the succession is the same in the UK & the 14 other Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I've aborted it. There seems to be confusion at the Canadian monarchy page. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello JayBeeEll/Archives/2022,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Since you likely have no idea how this re-closing touched me, and mattered.......... well, I know its silly to invest so much meaning into our Wiki edits.... but I just wanted to go the extra mile to say "thank you". Silly gushing emoting mode..... off. Carry on.... NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey NewsAndEventsGuy, thanks for the kind note. I was just chatting with a(n in-real-life) friend the other day about how weird it is that there is this group of total strangers, most of them completely anonymous, about whom I have genuine warm feelings, built up via this strange shared interest. And you're very welcome! --JBL (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

>grins< or if you prefer, cheers and bottoms' up! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi JayBeeEll/Archives/2022,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Request regarding wiki-burnout

The time of "nothing good or healthy happening on Wikipedia" has overlapped with the time of "escalating responsibilities in every other area of life", so I most definitely need to get away from here. I've purged my watchlist and will be logging out in a couple minutes. If you do see me editing anywhere, please drop me a note and confirm that it's really what I want to be doing with my life. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi XOR'easter, boy can I relate. Yes, I will be happy to check if I see you around. (I think WP:FRINGEN and AFD are particularly maddening placed to hang out.) As for myself, I'm going to go read some Calvin Trillin and pretend classes don't start next week .... (I swear that looking over Calculus has been on my to-do list for weeks at this point; surely one day I will ... :/.) --JBL (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Huygens (chess piece)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Huygens (chess piece) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#Huygens (chess piece) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (notifying you because you were involved in the AfD a while back) ChromaTK (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Diagonal (and antidiagonal)

Hi JayBeeEll, thank you for fixing the "polyhedron" at Diagonal; I had not realized that what I had removed was a defaced version of something that had formerly made sense, so I'm glad you noticed this! As for "antidiagonal" being infrequent, all I meant was that the main diagonal arises much more frequently in math. I don't have a particular reference for this, however, so your edit removing this remark is fine with me. Ebony Jackson (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ebony Jackson, you're welcome. My apologies if my edit summaries seemed personally critical, it was not my desire or intent. I agree with you that the main diagonal is mentioned more frequently, because it's more important, in the same way that (say) linear maps are much more common than antilinear maps -- but I don't think that it's necessary to state this meta fact explicitly, basically because of WP:DUE. JBL (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What was wrong with asking Paul August that question?

Referenced here (so I do not link directly to my site): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_August&oldid=1125846028?

You said "low-quality" and you call yourself a mathematician? Please provide answers before just deleting my question.

How would you explain 0 negative comments with a little less than two hundred downloads on Vixra: https:// vixra.org/abs/2206.0040 [remove space]? 78.72.115.52 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You were abusing Wikipedia by using a talk page to harass an editor and spamlinking to your website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Doing an ANI

Hey, JBL. Please let me know your preference on initiating an ANI on Elmenhorster. I can do it, but would prefer you as I am in the middle of two other projects on here. Ping me and I'll immediately endorse. Apologies for the obvious frustration involved and thanks for the soundness of character you have shown. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Thanks for the kind words -- I have created it. JBL (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Anytime. I have added my two cents. Preferably this will be wrapped up soon. Best to you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well glad that that's over. Just in time for final exam grading, too. I'll try to find some time to contribute to the article later. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice Python script

Hello, JayBeeEll. I replied to a recent comment of yours at a new administrator discussion. I happened to notice your response to someone else about interactions with other editors. You had recommended that that editor try a sourceforge script given his unease over not being familiar with the particular potential new administrator's wikipedia user name. I tried it for myself and... WOW! It is great! Thank you so much. It runs pleasantly in my Chrome browser and is really fast and is so well designed with helpful links. I like (and miss) lots of the scripts that are no longer maintained, um, I forgot the URL, the Tool Server wiki site maybe? Music Animal writes nice scripts but he is only one person.

While I was here, I read your user talk page. Sheesh! You are extraordinarily patient. So is David Eppstein and the XOR'easter person. I have a low tolerance for sources that don't satisfy WP:RS and WP:NPOV. You are correct about Research Gate being the Facebook of (not so) scholarly journal crudola. As for vixra... sigh. I tried to explain about vixra on Math StackExchange. The question was "Submit papers to arXiv or viXra?" Both the question and all the answers got deleted by site mods back in 2016. The viXra proprietor is a nice guy but he has a lengthy disclaimer (EDIT: Oh! It is blacklisted so that I can't even link to it here; no great loss) in which he acknowledges the site is a parody of arXiv, which isn't peer-reviewed either FWIW! (Hmm, looks like vixra is now owned and operated by Scientific God Inc. ("SGI") lol!) And then there's Tim's Paranormal Website. I read the Squaring the Circle article talk page. OMG I had no idea how invested people are in mathematics. I thought US political article talk pages were the ultimate cesspools of conflict and bad faith editing but I was wrong. I have a math degree too but I function at a much lower level than you do. I *DO* like combinatorics and permutations a lot! I do applied probability for a living, e.g. hardware reliability, finance, catastrophes.

So, this is lengthy in keeping with my style. Thank you for your efforts here and keep up the good work. FeralOink (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi FeralOink,

Thanks for your message, and the kind words. I think you probably know this, but just in case: the script is indeed wonderful, and I have nothing to do with its creation or maintenance at all (it is the work of Σ).

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

<math display=block> vs :<math>

let's prefer :<math> over <math display=block> because <math display=block> cannot be seen in the amoled dark mode of the Wikipedia app. If not, why should we prefer <math display=block>? Jarfuls of Tweed (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

So this seems to be resolved but just for the record, if you were interested in changing the consensus on this, the right places to discuss it would be either WT:WPM or WT:MSM. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)