User talk:Jacobolus

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to start a new topic.

This page is archived for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.

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)

Dialogue and talks in Wikipedia

[... clipped; see 2024 archive and Talk:Function (mathematics) ... ]

Indeed, that's why I decided terminating my yearly visit to this article (over the past 10 years I have seen no progress), and coming back in 2025. As regards the codomain issue, since the 1980s I've been regularly asking mathematicians using codomains why they might want it. The answer always amounted to "tradition in certain fields" or "it's a convenience" (without a technical justification). Yet, most definitions for composition of functions with codomains are very restrictive. Of course, since the term codomain exists, it must be covered by an article meant to be encyclopedic, but a solid technical justification would be a genuine added value.

If you have the incentive to continue working on this article, you may find Rogaway's remarks very helpful [1], in particular his remark #18: 'Definitional choices that don't capture strong intuition are usually wrong, they may come back to haunt you". As for the of informal introduction, I recently found very high praise for the educational style of Michael Spivak's Calculus (now in its 4th edition, freely available on the web). Since the perspective of the article must be far wider than calculus (ideally, all of mathematics) the intuitive discussion on functions must also be wider. A suitable preamble to the formal definition might run as follows (after a few examples). (begin excerpt) In our examples, we have been writing f(x) for the "output value" of the function f for a given "input value" x. This immediately raises two questions: (a) for which values of x is f defined? and (b) if x is such a value, what, then, is the value of f(x)? (end excerpt). Answering those questions provides the justification for a simple formal definition to follow.

I hope this helps. Other work currently prevents me from providing more input or even having an occasional look at these pages. Boute (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious purpose I can see is to avoid extra bookkeeping. It's easier to say e.g. a square matrix represents a function from ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}}$ and not worry up front about noting that the image might be some restricted subset in degenerate cases. Etc. –jacobolus (t) 09:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was reading through this talk page out of curiosity and might have something helpful to add. When talking about functions ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} ^{m}}$ you don't want to exclude maps that only map to subspaces. Also the transpose map turns the codomain of a matrix ${\displaystyle M}$ into the domain of ${\displaystyle M^{\top }}$. I think the category theorists quite appreciate the codomain for these reasons and others. Anyway happy late new year I guess. Shoe Deceiver (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also the preimage map of clearly depends on what the codomain is. Shoe Deceiver (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subtended angle intro

Hi,

Obviously it's disappointing to have clarified something for the worse, but I'm happy to go with your reverting of it.

What I'm wondering, though, is whether there's a way to introduce readers in a really clear way to the central idea first, rather than (as it seems to me) hit them straight away with several definitions in succession, all applied to different situations, and a large number of wikilinks? That's the problem I was trying to solve, really, and it's clear from the talk page that at least one visitor had trouble understanding the article when they visited in 2019, though I've not checked what it looked like back then. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: maybe a better diagram would go some way. Show one angle, with a a line segment, an circular arc and an arbitrary curve all subtending it (and having the same endpoints?). We can also say the line segment subtends both the arcs if we want, and everything subtends the angle. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Subtended angle § Subtended angle intro

Fundamental theorem of calculus

• User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1

Might be planning to implement it anyway. But do you think the introduction of differentiation and integral seems superfluous and somewhat unrelated before the fundamental theorem of calculus? I somehow managed to relate those two with the fundamental theorem in order to describe it mathematically. The second theorem's proof is the only problem I could not comprehend anymore. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what the question is, or what you mean by "implement it". If you are asking whether it is worth giving a quick introduction about what derivatives and integrals are in the article about the fundamental theorem of calculus, I would say yes. Some readers who are not familiar with calculus might be curious about it. I think we should if possible give a (brief) explanation at the start which is accessible to e.g. high school students taking an algebra or trigonometry course who have not yet seen any calculus. But we also shouldn't belabor it, as that may be distracting for more expert readers. –jacobolus (t) 23:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reordered Formulas

Hi, I reordered the formulas on the page about stereographic projections because I think sums are nicer if they don't lead with a minus. It's also more consistent since, as it stands, the formula for the polar form has both ${\displaystyle 1+R^{2}}$ and ${\displaystyle R^{2}+1}$ in the denominator. That said I won't contest. Shoe Deceiver (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoe Deceiver: There are a wide variety of different variants in use in different sources, but it's typical to put the 1 first. If it were up to me we'd use a north-pole centered stereographic projection, in which case the relevant quantities end up as ⁠${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{2}}(1+x^{2}+y^{2})}$⁠ and ⁠${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{2}}(1-x^{2}-y^{2})}$⁠. (If I ever manage to get the time and energy for a substantial rewrite I might put this one in place. It also has the beneficial property of not reversing the orientation of the sphere. I think it's easier to make sense of, it accords better with the conventional spherical coordinates which measure the polar angle from the north pole as 0, and it generalizes better to uses such as taking the tangent of half an angle or taking the stereographic projection of unit quaternions as a representation of rotations ["modified Rodrigues parameters"].) –jacobolus (t) 19:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Ivory (mathematician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lemma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:Jacobolus reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: No violation) –jacobolus (t) 18:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sine and cosine

Did you mean to remove the Van Brummelen citation in this edit? XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter, Whoops, no I had just added it and did not mean to immediately remove it. I started working offline on reworking that section a bit, but have been a bit busy. –jacobolus (t) 18:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Talk:Hindu–Arabic numeral system is currently 158k bytes, which is more than the 75k that the guidelines suggest as a line for archiving. It is one of the largest talk pages.[2] Usually when talk pages calm down, large closed discussions are archived. The top two or three topics are a year old and done with. Is it not time to archive them? Manually perhaps? Wizmut (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't a participant in discussions on this topic, why do you care so much? The problems with the page are still persisting and are not really "done with". This page and related pages are a serious mess. –jacobolus (t) 15:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I'll try to articulate the problems I see.

Is there current work being done pursuant to these topics? There does not appear to be. Such large and wide-ranging discussions, some parts of which led to consensus and others not, are very hard to pick apart. Guidelines (WP:TALKSIZE) suggest starting new topics rather than bumping old ones. The new topic could focus on one problem and summarize points made earlier. Absent archiving, topics that probably shouldn't be replied to directly could make use of {Discussion top} and {Discussion bottom}.

There are also parts that devolved into personal attacks (not talking about you specifically) - someone trying to catch up on maintaining the page would see a lot of dirty laundry. Even worse, there are productive comments mixed right in, which often get lost. So it goes... I recognize some of the names.

I understand that some of these points may not be entirely persuasive. I will leave it to you to keep the talk page maintained. I would ask, however, that you consider the guidelines I mentioned earlier, as well as the perspective of any editor that is new to the article and who may want to understand what work is currently being done on it. Regards, Wizmut (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizmut – I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm asking why you personally are affected. (For example: if you wanted to start a new talk page discussion about this topic but felt overwhelmed by the talk page, that might be a good reason to try to do something about it.) It seems likely to me that you are going through some auto-generated list of big talk pages and trying to "fix" them in order from largest to smallest. In my opinion this activity has very limited value, and I would recommend spending your time on something else.

dirty laundry – This is helpful context for readers, because it shows that the obvious problems in the article are a subject of discussion, not just being swept under the rug. –jacobolus (t) 19:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Dirty laundry" was referring to all of the comments that were not about improving the article. Comments about editors, rather than content. Such comments are very unhelpful to incoming editors. Indeed, they probably set a bad example.

For the concern of trying to hide problems. New topics can always be created. Old ones can be linked to. In fact that's what should happen; a new editor replying to one of the monoliths currently available would just make it hard to follow the flow of discussion.

My recommendations about talk page maintenance come from examining over a thousand talk pages, and the actions that are usually taken to help them along. They also come from reading guidelines. There is no requirement that I be personally affected in order to maintain an article. Indeed, it is often better to have an impartial point of view. Wizmut (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of calculus

In the section of Early precursors of calculus of India subsection it states that

They applied ideas from (what was to become) differential and integral calculus to obtain (Taylor–Maclaurin) infinite series for sine, cosine and arctangent.

What does it mean? Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly satisfied with the description there, but it's hard to give a short and accessible but nuanced summary. For more see Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics, Madhava of Sangamagrama, Madhava series. (Or better, try reading some of their references.) –jacobolus (t) 15:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithm

https://youtube.com/watch?v=A9WY_HZUK8Q Dominic3203 (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to immediately watch a YouTube video. What's the relevance to Malthus, and why do you think Malthus's c. 1800 essay belongs right in the middle of several sentences about the quadrature of the hyperbola and the name "hyperbolic logarithm" from the mid 17th century? –jacobolus (t) 08:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about I remove anything about Malthus and keep everything else? Dominic3203 (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems out of place: your new sentences (and this video link) don't really correspond to the sentences you stuck it into the middle of, in my opinion. Notice there's already a mention of Bürgi: "Prior to Napier's invention, there had been other techniques of similar scopes, such as the prosthaphaeresis or the use of tables of progressions, extensively developed by Jost Bürgi around 1600." If you want to elaborate further perhaps History of logarithms § Bürgi or Jost Bürgi § Bürgi's work on logarithms would be good places for an extended discussion. –jacobolus (t) 08:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Color Space

A 3d representation of RGB, CMY, CMYK and HSB color spaces

Hi Jacob. I've seen you've removed the images of 3d color spaces commenting the CMYK portion is wrong and I'd like to hear feedback on how to improve it. The reason I've used 3 distorted cubes for CMYK is that in the conversion from RGB to CMYK, one of the components is always 0, meaning it can be represented as such. I've also used two cones for HSB because in practice the closest the B value is to 100% or 0, the less color variations it uses. Alex Van de Sande (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Avsa. I have a whole bunch of problems with this image, which I think is not really suitable for any Wikipedia article I can think of, and I don't think is worth trying to modify/improve. Some fundamental / top level issues:

• It tries to pack several differently shaped things into one picture, and the arrangement is kind of arbitrary and inconsistent
• There's a ton of extra wasted space around the side
• The shadows are confusing and distracting, since the objects otherwise seem to be generating light
• The labels are completely illegible at thumbnail size
• The shapes all have weirdly rounded corners (except CMYK, which doesn't, and also has unexplained gaps)
• The view from outside these various shapes doesn't really show very much about what is happening inside the solid, which is what people actually care about

Now about CMY/CMYK, the fundamental problem is that what is shown here are just RGB colors in a slightly different arrangement. These color spaces are about ink mixture on paper, which produce a completely different set of colors, some not representable in RGB (depending on the printer), with many RGB colors not representable in CMYK. A picture like this is really grossly misleading to readers about what CMY or CMYK means. Inks on paper combine in somewhat tricky ways, and there's no easy conversion of CMYK to RGB; in practice conversion is usually done with a lookup table, but there are also some sophisticated theoretical color mixing models, if you want to go down a rabbit hole. Overall I don't think trying to draw CMY or CMYK as a cube or similar is very useful to readers (and the shape you chose for CMYK seems like WP:OR). The various images in CMYK color model do an okay job explaining how it works, though there are probably other images that could be added.

The HSB "bicone" in your picture also has some problems. First, the space you are aiming for is most commonly called HSL, and HSB is not uncommonly used as a name for HSV, a different color space, see HSL and HSV. Second, while there was a bicone as a concept involved, the actual coordinates are cylindrical, not conical, so showing a bicone is fairly misleading unless accompanied by an extra several sentences of textual explanation, which isn't going to be practical in most contexts where you tried to put this image.

The RGB cube is less individually problematic, though I'm generally unconvinced about the usefulness of showing such shapes from the outside. But it's completely redundant with images already on a few of the pages where you plonked this image down.

Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 15:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! Alex Van de Sande (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuktibhasa

recently some user is adding the claim that calculus and the concept of integration and differentiation was invented by Kerala school in article like Yuktibhasa and Kerala with unreliable sources and google chrome links as a source and when I undo the edit with valid point he is going to an edit war Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Namesake

I assume that your user id derives from the Jacobolus papers in the 1632 series, and that you have some familiarity with the stories in which they appear. If so, would you consider writing an article or section about them? Thanks. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what that is, sorry. My user ID is a dopey online nickname I made up as a child then stuck with out of inertia. –jacobolus (t) 15:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sagitta

Ooops, my bad... the math was not rendering, and I somehow thought the colons were interfering, which was the only reason I removed them. Perhaps was just a "usual glitch" in the LaTeX rendering? as it seems fine now...  Myndex talk   11:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. All the colons do is make a definition list, which is technically semantically invalid, but has been traditionally used on Wikipedia for indentation, such as in talk-page conversations and block math. An alternative way to get an indent is with
<math display=block> ... </math>. This takes more markup than
:<math> ... </math> but makes the html pedants happy. –jacobolus (t) 16:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Geometry

Just to clarify, I didn't write that sentence, but reinstated it with an update when another editor reverted it for lack of citation. I wouldn't have reinstated it had that editor included your comment, and agree that a separate section would be better. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just tried reading the paragraph and the sentence seems like a non sequitur in context. I think the topic can be mentioned somewhere, but should be better integrated. –jacobolus (t) 17:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 0.99999999999999999999999999999999

A tag has been placed on 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, [...] If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". [...] Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Can you link the previous deletion discussion? Every single similar title in the set {0.999 (3 nines}, 0.9999 (4 nines), ... 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (41 nines)} is a redirect to the article 0.999..., with (previously) the sole exception of 0.99999999999999999999999999999999 (32 nines). That makes no sense whatsoever. –jacobolus (t) 17:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 5 § 0.99999.... –jacobolus (t) 18:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's here. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo Okay, thanks. Doesn't seem to reflect current 2025 consensus. It makes no sense whatsoever to piecemeal force deletion of the single example 32 nines, while keeping every other example with 3 through 41 nines, based on some kind of automatic thoughtless bureaucracy. Cf. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy –jacobolus (t) 18:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop emptying categories unilaterally

A category that exists should not be emptied unilaterally. You need to restore every article that was in Category:People who studied the transit of Venus. Once you have done that you are free to nominate it for deletion, rename or merger. Once a category exists you should not empty it out of turn. You must take it to categories for discussion to rename or empty it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second John on this one. Please discuss category deletions at CFD. Emptying out of process isn't how categories are handled like this. I've reverted your removals. ^SMason_Garrison 13:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison The category creation in the middle of an ongoing discussion was completely inappropriate, as is revert warring. –jacobolus (t) 13:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Should biographies go in non-biographical categories and refrain from further controversial changes pending discussion. –jacobolus (t) 13:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your original revert, it would have been extremely helpful to point to the ongoing discussion ^SMason_Garrison 13:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a CfD discussion. Once a category exists you cannot empty it out of process. You need to restore all the contents and open an actual CfD discusiion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert I am not used to how categories work, but the way you are approaching this whole matter is quite far from ordinary Wikipedia practice and does not feel like good faith engagement. The usual way to work in Wikipedia is to revert controversial changes and then discuss them, seeking consensus, rather than trying to force your preferred version by edit warring and then complaining when other people disagree. –jacobolus (t) 14:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot mass reply existing categories period. Anymore than you can unilaterally delete an article once it is created. You should restore all the contents and then bring the discussion to CfD. The categorization talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss specific categories, CfD is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The category should not have been created, period. You are trying to force a controversial change through by making anyone who disagrees with you jump through pointless bureaucratic hoops, rather than following ordinary Wikipedia process of seeking consensus. See e.g. WP:BRD. My talk page is certainly not the place to discuss it. –jacobolus (t) 14:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, next time I'll try to include a discussion link in such revert edits. –jacobolus (t) 14:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard F. Lyon

Before you pointless and blindly revert again, please review MOS:NICKNAME re: "Dick" and MOS:DATETIES re:MDY date format. GiantSnowman 17:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman There is no prohibition mentioned there on mentioning the nickname "Dick", which seems entirely reasonable and up to local editor discretion (if a consensus among editors of the specific page found that it was better without the nickname, that would also be fine; feel free to start a discussion on the talk page). Likewise, random people do not have a "strong national tie" to particular date formats (the "strong national tie" thing is supposed to help a random British person justify changing the date format on the article about Big Ben or something), and doesn't apply to every arbitrary subject. You running around changing these all over the site is not only a clear violation of WP:STYLEVAR but is also super disruptive and annoying. Please don't do it. –jacobolus (t) 20:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the nickname, please actually read MOS:NICKNAME - nicknames should only be shown if "it is not a common hypocorism".

Ditto with dates - WP:DATETIES clearly says that for American subjects, "For the United States this is MDY".

You are patently wrong on both counts here and embarrassing yourself trying to argue otherwise. GiantSnowman 20:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read MOS:NICKNAME. All it says is that nicknames which are not "common hypocorisms" should usually be presented, but does not prohibit mentioning other ones. Additionally, MOS:BIO is a "guideline", not a policy page. Reasonable editors should use discretion and seek local consensus, not start edit wars about trivialities all across the site. Large-scale bot-like enforcement of rigid conformance with your narrow interpretation of this MOS guideline is disruptive to the project, and you should seek pre-clearance approval before starting in on that kind of project, just as any bot needs to do; cf. WP:MEATBOT. –jacobolus (t) 20:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing very poorly and in bad faith. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Richard F. Lyon where I hope to resolve this amicably before I escalate to ANI. GiantSnowman 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary: you are far out of line of Wikipedia norms, which is to preserve the standing stable version of a page when there is a conflict, instead seeking consensus on the talk page. Instead you are (a) disruptively making mass trivial edits across the site in a way that is not really in accordance with any policy to enforce your personal narrow interpretations, and then (b) disruptively edit warring instead of discussing when you are reverted. I am frankly shocked to find an administrator behaving so badly. –jacobolus (t) 21:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there would be no conflict if you had any knowledge of our policies and guidelines whatsoever. For whatever reason, you are WP:OWNing the article to try and maintain your own (incorrect) version, and you are disruptively editing to do that. GiantSnowman 21:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am closely familiar with both of these guidelines. You might want to re-read Wikipedia:Consensus. –jacobolus (t) 21:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, you simply cannot be "closely familiar", given your comments above and your edits to date. GiantSnowman 21:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you aren't being respectful, at all. You led off with insults, have continued the insults straight through, and you have not thought critically about why these guidelines exist in the form they do, considered whether your interpretations are correct, or attempted even a little bit to understand my interpretation of these guidelines or why there is a disagreement, instead preferring to bash your way through with revert warring, then followed up by escalating to a "noticeboard" report. You have violated the most basic and fundamental Wikipedia policy here, while self righteously lecturing me despite not knowing anything about me or my understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. –jacobolus (t) 21:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're the one who started with insults, accusing me of being a MEATBOT. I very much have considered your interpretation, and that interpretation is 100% incorrect. You are the one who has refused to listen to me or to think critically. As I said, you are blindly reverting and OWNing the article. Your first revert says that my edits were "unhelpful" (they were not) and suggests you did not read my edit summaries. GiantSnowman 21:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"MEATBOT" is a description, not an insult. You are making large numbers of (frankly disruptive) script-assisted edits. Take a look at WP:MEATBOT. Frankly you should seek a bot approval before carrying out this kind of activity. –jacobolus (t) 21:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of my edits are disruptive, and what constitutes 'large' numbers? GiantSnowman 21:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're skimming across many pages making hundreds(?) of edits like this, often one every 10 seconds or so, with summaries "script-assisted date audit and style fixes per MOS:NUM". That's not close to enough time to be reading the pages in question or giving careful consideration case by case, and is significantly more edits than un-assisted humans will ever make. It's disruptive to change the date formatting based on features like where some random person was born. That's not what the "strong national ties" caveat to MOS:STYLERET is supposed to be about. –jacobolus (t) 21:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not making hundreds of edits every 10 seconds, what a ludicrous thing to say. Diffs or it didn't happen, as the kids say.

So what 'strong national tie' does Mr Lyons have, if not to USA? GiantSnowman 21:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I said you have made hundreds (maybe? I didn't count) of edits of this type. In some stretches these seem to be done about one per ten seconds.

I don't think Dick Lyon has any "strong national ties" whatsoever to a particular date format, which is why changing the style on that basis is not appropriate. –jacobolus (t) 21:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So your complaint is that I make edits? Ok, sure...

Just admit you're wrong about an American having strong national ties to America. You're embarrassing yourself. GiantSnowman 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my complaint is (a) you are making large numbers of edits in a short amount of time, ranging from largely unnecessary to mildly harmful, based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, and also (b) you are being extremely rude, far, far below the standard I would expect of an administrator. If you continue the insults I should probably take this up at WP:AN/I. I'd really rather not though, as it wastes a lot of everyone's time. –jacobolus (t) 18:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diffs of 'harmful' edits. When you stop being rude, so will I. GiantSnowman 18:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, life's too short - I'm going to leave you to police this article, I have better things to do. Bye. GiantSnowman 19:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy. –jacobolus (t) 19:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klein: 19th century math.

Kusma is doing an impressive work at User:Kusma/sandbox/FK. Best! Esevoke (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lemniscate elliptic functions

I really don't understand your behaviour at that article.

Why do you insist on directing readers to page at the end of the article, when the normal link goes to a scan of equal if not superior quality?

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your behavior. Why are you insisting on running bots over pages that explicitly requested not to because the bots constantly fuck citations up? (In this case all of the changes made are at best trivial, and some are explicitly undesired: The most "useful" changes were a couple URLs replaced with DOIs that point to the same place. There was also unnecessary addition of which section of ArXiV a couple of preprints are in. A couple of ISBNs were added, which are also unnecessary but okay, whatever.) The bot is not adding any real value here, but when the bot runs repeatedly it causes significant distraction, and it's annoying constantly reverting it. –jacobolus (t) 22:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing the bot's edits when remove the {{bots}} template. That page was missing class for cite arxivs, several DOIs, ISBNs etc... Now answer my question. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which question? We are pointing at the picture of the map (the explicit source for File:Peirce Quincuncial Projection 1879.jpg which we show in the article). –jacobolus (t) 22:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not remove the bot deny template, period, without seeking talk page consensus. It's inappropriately presumptuous to assume that people didn't mean it when they added such a template. –jacobolus (t) 22:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the JSTOR scan is awful. –jacobolus (t) 22:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly better than the archive.org one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I'm really not sure what else to say that isn't very insulting of your vision and/or taste. In the interest of comity, we can agree to disagree. –jacobolus (t) 22:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Addition retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though I'm not sure how much I did.

To be honest I think this article still has significant issues deserving of someone's dedicated attention, and it would benefit from more thorough content review, including some rewriting and reorganization. I push back a bit on these procedural GARs because I don't think the stated problems about sourcing in a few sections were particularly serious or worth focusing on. –jacobolus (t) 23:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching the chain rule

doi:10.3390/educsci15040433 Might be useful for developing the chain rule article (and it's open access!). MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't need to be on my talk page. You can discuss at talk:Chain rule or feel free to make improvements to the article. –jacobolus (t) 12:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Sorry. MathKeduor7 (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-editing discussion between jacobolus and David Eppstein

Moved from Talk:Euclid's Elements § Reverse-indent vs. bullet style for the reference list

I moved this discussion to my talk page, copying the entirety here, but also leaving the content-relevant parts in place, while removing the off-topic parts, since they seem like a distraction for Talk:Euclid's Elements. Previous context: User talk:David Eppstein § Please stop making disparaging personal comments in edit summaries

I am not trying to cause further bad feelings or public drama, and don't expect any reply, but also am willing to further discuss here on my talk page. –jacobolus (t) 05:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reverse-indent vs. bullet style for the reference list

@David Eppstein recently changed the § References section from the current columns + reverse-indent style (for the past 6 years, originally set by @Waynejayes) to use a no columns + bullet list style instead, under the edit summary "repeat sentence from lead later and source; convert more sources to consistent sfn style". I reverted the part of this edit which changed the reference list style based on: (1) the change seemed unexplained, unmentioned in the edit summary, which only described apparently unrelated changes; (2) there wasn't (to me) an obvious reason for the change, since both styles seem acceptable, and the previous one had been there for years with no apparent objection; and (3) I personally prefer the use of columns for saving some amount of vertical space and making the information density a bit higher.

In general my preference is to leave stable style choices alone (those that have been some particular way for several years) just to avoid style change for change's sake or to suit one or another person's preference. However, I don't really feel strongly about whether a reverse-indent style or bullet style is used for lists like this, so I would be happy to live with whatever the consensus of other editors is. I would argue for keeping the columns though, even if we switch to bullets.

My revert apparently left David feeling frustrated; that was not my goal. –jacobolus (t) 21:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about this specific formatting issue. I was merely cleaning up some other cruft in the referencing templates that we didn't need to have any more (specifically, hardcoded columnization) and happened not to recognize this parameter as non-cruft. If someone thinks strongly that indented lists are preferable to bulleted lists for this style of referencing with short footnotes pointing to a longer bibliography, or that bulleted lists are preferable to indented lists, then we can discuss that, but either way is ok with me.

My frustration is more that I repeatedly and frequently see you going out of your way to undercut and contradict me on little things, much more than in my interactions with other editors. Immediately after I complained about you doing it here, you did it again here, going out of your way to tell another editor how inappropriate you thought it was for me to write an edit summary that was making a valid point but doing so in a somewhat frivolous way.

So anyway I don't disagree with your decision to reverse this change, in isolation, but there's a quote from The Big Lebowski that I think is relevant. I won't repeat it because I think you are likely to find it uncivil; instead, I'll point to WP:BRIE. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here was deliberately content focused and I hoped conciliatory. I hoped to seek consensus among other editors about the (in my opinion fairly trivial) content dispute, so that it wouldn't be left hanging unresolved; I am not trying to force my own preference.

Apparently you are again offended. Let me start with an apology: I'm sorry for having started this discussion, and sorry that my comment above caused you pain. It was not intended that way. Next time I revert one of your changes, and a version of an article which is acceptable to me is left standing, as it was here, I will leave the topic alone unless you want to discuss it further, and do my best to ignore any oblique references you make about it in your unrelated edits.

Secondly, let me re-iterate: I respect your professional work as a scholar and your contributions to Wikipedia. I think you generally do excellent work, you are a clear writer, and you have spent innumerable hours making significant improvements here. It is a tremendous public service, and I really appreciate it.

However, in response to my comment above, you have decided to derail the page-relevant discussion with an inappropriate off-topic tangent. I unfortunately feel like I need to reply, since you are making a public contest here, even though it is irrelevant to anticipated readers of this page. (For context for others reading here, I recently asked David on his talk page to stop insulting me or other people in his edit summaries. I tried to do so in a low-key and respectful way, but he responded very aggressively there, and we had a back-and-forth. I thought that part was settled, but apparently not.)

David: I urge you to read, and carefully consider some Wikipedia policy and help pages. Start with Wikipedia:Civility (notably § Edit summary dos and don'ts):

Here is a list of tips about edit summaries:

• Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately.
• Use neutral language.
• Remain calm.
• Don't make snide comments.
• Don't make personal remarks about editors.
• Don't be aggressive.

And Help:Edit summary § What to avoid in edit summaries:

• Avoid misleading summaries. Mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important. [...]
• Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines, or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
• Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy.

Warning: be careful of what you write in edit summaries. Inappropriate edit summaries may be used as evidence against you in behavioral complaints. This applies particularly to uncivil and deliberately misleading edit summaries.

One reason I reverted your change under on-topic discussion in this section is that you were not clear about (didn't even mention) your change in your edit summary.

But more importantly, on several occasions in your edit summaries (if someone looks they will have no trouble finding examples), both directed at myself and at other editors, you did not use neutral language, and you did make snide, personal, and aggressive comments. I can't tell whether you were were feeling calm while making those comments, but I can tell you that they often don't read as "calm" to me.

I also urge you to read and carefully consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a battleground, and your own link, Wikipedia:Being right isn't enough, the entire point of which is that you should try not to be obnoxious when you are saying something that you consider to be valid, because it causes pointless drama and makes the project unpleasant for everyone else around.

What you call your "valid point" was phrased rudely, and as a result it caused offense to the newcomer who you had reverted, and they started a discussion expressing their frustration (in part, "I am frustrated by snipe reverts without constructive reason"). I think your essential action of reverting their change was justified, but your edit summary was completely inappropriate. I expect you to work much harder to be polite. If you want to make a tricky and oblique point, you should not say it sarcastically (or even "somewhat frivolously") in a few words and expect others to read your mind, but should unpack your point in sufficient detail on the talk page to explain what you mean and avoid giving offense. If you can't do that, you must skip the "frivolous" version and give a clear, neutral, and forthright summary of what change you made instead.

Me expressing that (a) I agreed with the edit, but (b) disagreed with the edit summary was not "going out of my way" to undercut or offend you – my comment was not addressed to you, but to the newcomer – but rather was an attempt to express some sympathy and soften the blow of being, in my opinion, abusively stomped on. I take it as my responsibility as a community member to make people feel welcomed, even when they are met with rudeness or hostility. See Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers: "Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility.". Instead of recognizing the pain you caused, you jumped into the discussion with an attempt to justify your rudeness. Ideally, in my opinion, you should apologize to the newcomer, as recommended by that page, make a welcoming and conciliatory message on their talk page, and strive hard to do better next time.

It is your special responsibility as an administrator to be welcoming and respectful of all participants here, including myself, newcomers, and everyone else, including those whose edits you find unhelpful or frustrating. See please Wikipedia:Administrators § Administrator conduct:

Administrators should strive to model high standards of courtesy and civility, and their edits, discussions, interactions, and conduct should set the example for all other editors and at all times. This is both a requirement and a condition with holding administrator privileges.

In response to your comment above, that "there's a quote from The Big Lebowski that I think is relevant. I won't repeat it because I think you are likely to find it uncivil", I do not know which quote you are referring to. It was likely a good choice not to repeat it. However, it was a poor (uncivil) choice to make this not-a-reference-reference at all. Next time please keep it entirely to yourself.

If you have further to say about this topic, please take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

––jacobolus (t) 01:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]