Welcome to my talk page. Click here to start a new topic. |
How to edit a page, General tutorial, Picture tutorial, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, help pages, village pump, Images for deletion
Again, welcome! -- Lst27 (talk) 23:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert my edit to Orthographic projection? Seems to me that the text is now ungrammatical and my edit fixed it. You can't start a sentence with "Orthographic projection is a form of...". Am I missing something? Zvika ( talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in an edit war at Cartesian coordinate system. An uninvolved administrator may consider that both the other editor and you did dot respect the WP:3RR rule. If you would have waited a little before your last reverts, I could do them myself, and we could be sure that only the other editor may be blocked.
By the way, I have notified the last talk-page edit of this editor to their last blocking administrator, and suggested an indefinite block, per WP:NOTHERE D.Lazard ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
My example. 95.26.146.215 ( talk) 08:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
They may really waste your with nonsense The latest example. 95.26.146.215 ( talk) 08:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
It's fun editing together, and I like your final edit on Perpendicular. I think we should change the second part of that section (about the dot product.) I will do it on the talk page. Guy vandegrift ( talk) 23:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! It seems I've made a pointless edit on Polar coordinate system and you reverted it. However, now I'm confused because I'm not really sure why my edit was incorrect. I'm not a native English speaker so that's why the sentence seems weird to me.
If it's not too much, would you be able to explain to me what does it mean?
Thanks! Confused.jpg ( talk) 12:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask about polyhedron. I have planned the article Triangular bipyramid for another improvement to GA, but there is one problem that I could not nominate. Are regular tetrahedrons and tetrahedrons the same synonymously, I have looked up the source [1] that mentioned the triangular bipyramid constructed by two triangular pyramid, but it does not mention the regular, and our article have differentiate both of them. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 08:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I see why you reverted this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid&diff=1204876221&oldid=1204870289), but I used VisualEditor and didn't change anything but the params for linking the book title. Sometimes it adds white space to the wiki text by itself. BhamBoi ( talk) 07:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, jacobolus. Hope all is well. You may want to share your thoughts on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SheriffIsInTown_and_timesinks. Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk) 18:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This remark would be out of topic on the main Function page, but might clarify some things. First, criticism of behavior fundamentally differs from criticism af a person. The first is a matter of calling to order, the second might (!) be taken as an insult. My observation about "frogs" and "adolescent" clearly referred to behavior.
Second, your question starting with "I'm not clear what you're hoping for" is a bit puzzling. Does it refer to my remark about people barging in in the middle of a dialogue?
My objection is that, since there is no moderator, the entire discussion becomes fragmented, as on the proverbial fishmarket (oops!). Some restraint may ensure more coherence. Observe that it's happening again to our dialog, impeding all progress! So don't take it personally if I occasionally get out of the melee. Boute ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
"I'm not clear what you're hoping for" is a bit puzzling. Does it refer to my remark about people barging in in the middle of a dialogue?– Whoops, I meant to answer this. I thought you were put off by the repeated rejection from multiple authors that an article critic was getting about concern about whether a domain/codomain must be very explicitly described to be part of a set-theoretic structure used as specification of a function. From what I can tell the discussion persisted largely due to the critic's repetitive replies that didn't really seem to engage with what other people were saying. I am not sure what you would prefer as a response in that case: it seems to me that other people can either keep trying to explain/respond, or just ignore the discussion and let the critic talk to themself. – jacobolus (t) 17:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Your commentary towards Airship in the GAN discussion is over the bright line of casting aspersions. You ignored my polite request to strike or remove it and continued responding. You can discuss an editor's actions without making bad-faith assumptions about their motives. I am asking you once again to remove your aspersions or I will block you. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jacobolus, sorry if I overwrote your changes after your reversion.
There are couple questions that I'd like your input on. Do you think it makes sense to restrict to real functions? The statements make sense for complex functions too; that's why I removed the word "real".
The reason I required the numerator to be nonzero in addition to the denominator being zero is because this is necessary for the ratio to tend to infinity, as you surely know.
Do you think it is really necessary to require the denominator to be positive away from the point in question. It is pretty standard to say that 1/x tends to infinity as x approaches 0, and not just as x approaches 0 from the right. Maybe the denominator should be assumed nonzero in some punctured neighborhood, but I couldn't figure out an easy way to say this without making the statement sound more technical. Maybe you can figure out a way to do it.
In any case, we should be calling 0/0 the indeterminate form, not f(x)/g(x). Ebony Jackson ( talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For your commitment to the project. I have thought many things of you (as I am sure you have of me) but that is one thing I have never doubted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
Hi, jacobolus.
I hope you are doing well. My name is Michał and I am writing a scientific paper about the formalization of psychological theories. I would like to use your cool diagram of the Munsell Color System in the paper. Please let me know if that is fine with you and if so how would you like me to cite it?
Thank you very much in advance for your responce
Best wishes
Michał MichalPS ( talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Newton's iteration in today's numerical analysis is much more than Raphson's version, which is the only version presented in the previous page. Furthermore, the convergence properties should be presented immediately after the method.
The previous page includes too much elementary stuff. This is a reference page, not a place for explanation. Fangong00 ( talk) 01:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relation between Metallic Ratios and Pythagorean triples
Metallic means are precisely represented by primitive Pythagorean triples.
In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple accurately represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.
Consider a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c) in which a < b < c and c - b ∈ {1, 2, 8}. Such Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) yields the precise value of a particular metallic mean as follows :
where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle and
For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean. Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean. Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on. [1] 152.58.22.234 ( talk) 10:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
I don't understand why you posted this on my talk page. – jacobolus (t) 10:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jacobolus,
I know you like digging old stuff and your expertise would be greatly appreciated here: [5].
Regards! A1E6 ( talk) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
On 23 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Descartes' theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the discovery of Descartes' theorem in geometry came from a too-difficult mathematics problem posed to a princess? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Descartes' theorem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Descartes' theorem), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 15,382 views (640.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to my talk page. Click here to start a new topic. |
How to edit a page, General tutorial, Picture tutorial, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style, help pages, village pump, Images for deletion
Again, welcome! -- Lst27 (talk) 23:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert my edit to Orthographic projection? Seems to me that the text is now ungrammatical and my edit fixed it. You can't start a sentence with "Orthographic projection is a form of...". Am I missing something? Zvika ( talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
You are involved in an edit war at Cartesian coordinate system. An uninvolved administrator may consider that both the other editor and you did dot respect the WP:3RR rule. If you would have waited a little before your last reverts, I could do them myself, and we could be sure that only the other editor may be blocked.
By the way, I have notified the last talk-page edit of this editor to their last blocking administrator, and suggested an indefinite block, per WP:NOTHERE D.Lazard ( talk) 17:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
My example. 95.26.146.215 ( talk) 08:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
They may really waste your with nonsense The latest example. 95.26.146.215 ( talk) 08:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
It's fun editing together, and I like your final edit on Perpendicular. I think we should change the second part of that section (about the dot product.) I will do it on the talk page. Guy vandegrift ( talk) 23:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! It seems I've made a pointless edit on Polar coordinate system and you reverted it. However, now I'm confused because I'm not really sure why my edit was incorrect. I'm not a native English speaker so that's why the sentence seems weird to me.
If it's not too much, would you be able to explain to me what does it mean?
Thanks! Confused.jpg ( talk) 12:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask about polyhedron. I have planned the article Triangular bipyramid for another improvement to GA, but there is one problem that I could not nominate. Are regular tetrahedrons and tetrahedrons the same synonymously, I have looked up the source [1] that mentioned the triangular bipyramid constructed by two triangular pyramid, but it does not mention the regular, and our article have differentiate both of them. Dedhert.Jr ( talk) 08:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I see why you reverted this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Geodesics_on_an_ellipsoid&diff=1204876221&oldid=1204870289), but I used VisualEditor and didn't change anything but the params for linking the book title. Sometimes it adds white space to the wiki text by itself. BhamBoi ( talk) 07:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, jacobolus. Hope all is well. You may want to share your thoughts on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SheriffIsInTown_and_timesinks. Thank you. HistoriesUnveiler ( talk) 18:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
This remark would be out of topic on the main Function page, but might clarify some things. First, criticism of behavior fundamentally differs from criticism af a person. The first is a matter of calling to order, the second might (!) be taken as an insult. My observation about "frogs" and "adolescent" clearly referred to behavior.
Second, your question starting with "I'm not clear what you're hoping for" is a bit puzzling. Does it refer to my remark about people barging in in the middle of a dialogue?
My objection is that, since there is no moderator, the entire discussion becomes fragmented, as on the proverbial fishmarket (oops!). Some restraint may ensure more coherence. Observe that it's happening again to our dialog, impeding all progress! So don't take it personally if I occasionally get out of the melee. Boute ( talk) 13:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
"I'm not clear what you're hoping for" is a bit puzzling. Does it refer to my remark about people barging in in the middle of a dialogue?– Whoops, I meant to answer this. I thought you were put off by the repeated rejection from multiple authors that an article critic was getting about concern about whether a domain/codomain must be very explicitly described to be part of a set-theoretic structure used as specification of a function. From what I can tell the discussion persisted largely due to the critic's repetitive replies that didn't really seem to engage with what other people were saying. I am not sure what you would prefer as a response in that case: it seems to me that other people can either keep trying to explain/respond, or just ignore the discussion and let the critic talk to themself. – jacobolus (t) 17:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Your commentary towards Airship in the GAN discussion is over the bright line of casting aspersions. You ignored my polite request to strike or remove it and continued responding. You can discuss an editor's actions without making bad-faith assumptions about their motives. I am asking you once again to remove your aspersions or I will block you. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jacobolus, sorry if I overwrote your changes after your reversion.
There are couple questions that I'd like your input on. Do you think it makes sense to restrict to real functions? The statements make sense for complex functions too; that's why I removed the word "real".
The reason I required the numerator to be nonzero in addition to the denominator being zero is because this is necessary for the ratio to tend to infinity, as you surely know.
Do you think it is really necessary to require the denominator to be positive away from the point in question. It is pretty standard to say that 1/x tends to infinity as x approaches 0, and not just as x approaches 0 from the right. Maybe the denominator should be assumed nonzero in some punctured neighborhood, but I couldn't figure out an easy way to say this without making the statement sound more technical. Maybe you can figure out a way to do it.
In any case, we should be calling 0/0 the indeterminate form, not f(x)/g(x). Ebony Jackson ( talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For your commitment to the project. I have thought many things of you (as I am sure you have of me) but that is one thing I have never doubted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
Hi, jacobolus.
I hope you are doing well. My name is Michał and I am writing a scientific paper about the formalization of psychological theories. I would like to use your cool diagram of the Munsell Color System in the paper. Please let me know if that is fine with you and if so how would you like me to cite it?
Thank you very much in advance for your responce
Best wishes
Michał MichalPS ( talk) 20:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Newton's iteration in today's numerical analysis is much more than Raphson's version, which is the only version presented in the previous page. Furthermore, the convergence properties should be presented immediately after the method.
The previous page includes too much elementary stuff. This is a reference page, not a place for explanation. Fangong00 ( talk) 01:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relation between Metallic Ratios and Pythagorean triples
Metallic means are precisely represented by primitive Pythagorean triples.
In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple accurately represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.
Consider a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c) in which a < b < c and c - b ∈ {1, 2, 8}. Such Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) yields the precise value of a particular metallic mean as follows :
where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle and
For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean. Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean. Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on. [1] 152.58.22.234 ( talk) 10:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
I don't understand why you posted this on my talk page. – jacobolus (t) 10:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jacobolus,
I know you like digging old stuff and your expertise would be greatly appreciated here: [5].
Regards! A1E6 ( talk) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
On 23 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Descartes' theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the discovery of Descartes' theorem in geometry came from a too-difficult mathematics problem posed to a princess? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Descartes' theorem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Descartes' theorem), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Amakuru ( talk) 00:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 15,382 views (640.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2024 – nice work! |
GalliumBot ( talk • contribs) (he/ it) 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)