User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/2023/

January 2023

Stop engaging in ad hominem attacks. Please find someon else to harass. Alexmov (talk)

Please learn how to use the preview button some time before you are blocked for WP:DE, WP:IDHT, or WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hey JBL, sorry for yelling at you over at sum of three cubes. Definitely not the way I like to resolve issues. Happy New Year though, you do great work! Best Radlrb (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Radlrb: thanks for reaching out, and for the kind words! No apology necessary, I'm sure. Happy new year to you, as well, and happy editing! --JBL (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Recursion

When you say here [[1]] that my pedantic edit destroys the meaning of the sentence. what meaning are you trying to retain? I think it's there to explain the code, and the current version is an incorrect description of what happens which obscures the readers' understanding of how the code works. JeffUK 19:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi JeffUK,

I would have thought the article talk-page is the right venue for this, but since you've asked here I'll respond here. The article is about recursion. When I read that sentence, the important encyclopedic point being made is that two slightly different notions of recursion (one in the context of a mathematical formula, one in the context of computer programming) have the same essential structure, namely, that each term is computed in some simple way from the previous terms (except possibly for some initial values). The way you rewrote the sentence structured it around a mildly pedantic point about how the computer computation works in practice; in my view, this had the effect of obscuring (rather than emphasizing) the similarity between the two situations.

If you are not satisfied with this, I would be happy to discuss it further, but I would suggest in that case copying the discussion to Talk:Recursion and continuing there.

Best, JBL (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, this is just regarding the reverted edit at the archive. Sorry for adding to it – I don't actually know how to continue a discussion that's been archived there, to be honest. Should I just re-post the contents of the previous discussion on the active page along with the new comment? --Pitsarotta (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pitsarotta: Thanks for your message. No apology necessary -- the biggest reason not to add to a discussion that's been archived is simply that no one will see it. When a discussion has been archived after a period of time with no response (as in this case), it is permissible to do what you suggest -- and you should probably also delete the entire section from the archive page (or else it will create a confusing, duplicated record in the archive) and for both the removal and addition leave an explanatory edit summary. All the best, JBL (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very helpful. Have a good one! --Pitsarotta (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pitsarotta: You're welcome; and I'm happy to see that reposting resulted in an efficient (and hopefully satisfactory) resolution! --JBL (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, thanks again! --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Square packing

Why did you delete the changes I made in the article "square packing in a square" ? The previous statement was wrong. Thierry Gensane confirmed me in an email that their program was not able to improve the packing from 1979. I added two links, the second explains in detail that Gensane incorrectly assumed to have slightly improved the packing. I wanted to add a SVG-graficof the packing. But I have to learn this first. Walter Trump (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks from CiaPan

Thank you for simplifying (special:diff/1146738098) my explanation (special:diff/840419862) at Cauchy sequence. CiaPan (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@CiaPan: and thank you for trying to clean up some of Darcourse's bad edits. There are so many of them, going back so many years—e.g. the ones mentioned here [2]—that I've never had the energy to comb through them systematically. Probably there is a case to be made that they should be blocked per WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gerda,

Thank you as always for this kind reminder!

All the best,

Joel

--JBL (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your recent edits to Live Action. Forgive me as this is my first attempt at improving an existing article in my 6 years of editing here. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256: Hey thanks for stopping by, I was actually just writing you a message on your talk-page :). Specifically, I was going to thank you for the nice improvements you made today. I have slightly mixed feelings about my revert, because the instinct to say something about why is very natural. The problem is that I don't think their claims are widely accepted (or at least, not accepted by people who didn't already agree with them), so any statement of the form "LA says this shows X" creates a problem for how much rebuttal to include. (If you wanted, I'd be happy to talk more about it on the article talk-page, where perhaps other editors could weigh in.)

I also can't help but mention how fascinating I find different peoples' editing styles: I've been doing this to various degrees for 10 years or more, and I think I've only created two articles -- and they were both really hard work for me! But I find working on & improving existing text easy. Meanwhile I see you've got several dozen nice articles created. Anyhow, thanks again for improving Live Action!

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)