User Talk: JayBeeEll

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archive = User talk:JayBeeEll/Archives/%(year)d/
| algo = old(365d)
| minthreadstoarchive = 5
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
}}
{{Archives|list = 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025}}
{{User:SuggestBot/config|frequency = twice a month|replace=yes}}

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

''Note:'' All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

{| class="wikitable sortable" border="1" style="text-align: center;"
|-
! scope="col" | Views/Day
! scope="col" | Quality
! scope="col" | Title
! scope="col" | Tagged with…

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:61}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C|link=Mertens function|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Mertens function ↗ (talk ↗)
| Add sources

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:480}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C|link=Heat equation|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Heat equation ↗ (talk ↗)
| Add sources

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:118}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C|link=Modularity theorem|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Modularity theorem ↗ (talk ↗)
| Add sources

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:502}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B|link=Wave function|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Wave function ↗ (talk ↗)
| Add sources

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:23}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start|link=Schur functor|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Schur functor ↗ (talk ↗)
| Add sources

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:432}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C|link=Trachtenberg system|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Trachtenberg system ↗ (talk ↗)
| Add sources

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:171}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C|link=Otamatone|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Otamatone ↗ (talk ↗)
| Cleanup

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:41}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C|link=Topological property|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Topological property ↗ (talk ↗)
| Cleanup

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:185}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C|link=Inheritance (object-oriented programming)|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Inheritance (object-oriented programming) ↗ (talk ↗)
| Cleanup

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:240}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C|link=Multinomial distribution|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Multinomial distribution ↗ (talk ↗)
| Expand

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:336}}
| {{Hs|3.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA|link=Gatineau|Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: GA ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Gatineau ↗ (talk ↗)
| Expand

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:12}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start|link=Kostka polynomial|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Kostka polynomial ↗ (talk ↗)
| Expand

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:70}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C|link=Kasparov versus the World|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Kasparov versus the World ↗ (talk ↗)
| Unencyclopaedic

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:253}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B|link=Speedcubing|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Speedcubing ↗ (talk ↗)
| Unencyclopaedic

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:779}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B|link=American imperialism|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | American imperialism ↗ (talk ↗)
| Unencyclopaedic

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:2700}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B|link=Grok (chatbot)|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Grok (chatbot) ↗ (talk ↗)
| Merge

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:61}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B|link=Motherhood penalty|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Motherhood penalty ↗ (talk ↗)
| Merge

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:5172}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B|link=Zoroastrianism|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Zoroastrianism ↗ (talk ↗)
| Merge

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:11}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C|link=Divisor sum identities|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Divisor sum identities ↗ (talk ↗)
| Wikify

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:60}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C|link=Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field ↗ (talk ↗)
| Wikify

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:60}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B|link=Criminal stereotype of African Americans|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Criminal stereotype of African Americans ↗ (talk ↗)
| Wikify

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:13}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start|link=JSciMed Central|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | JSciMed Central ↗ (talk ↗)
| Orphan

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:3}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start|link=Bangsamoro Stand Alone Senior High School|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Bangsamoro Stand Alone Senior High School ↗ (talk ↗)
| Orphan

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:14}}
| {{Hs|2.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B|link=Aurora (chain)|Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Aurora (chain) ↗ (talk ↗)
| Orphan

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:45}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start|link=ISO 56000|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | ISO 56000 ↗ (talk ↗)
| Stub

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:48}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start|link=Jamaica Observer|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Jamaica Observer ↗ (talk ↗)
| Stub

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:20}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start|link=Totient summatory function|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Totient summatory function ↗ (talk ↗)
| Stub

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:81}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start|link=Dave Hope|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Dave Hope ↗ (talk ↗)
| Stub

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:14}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start|link=Frobenius formula|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Frobenius formula ↗ (talk ↗)
| Stub

|- style="text-align: center; height: 30px;"
| style="text-align: right;" | {{formatnum:51}}
| {{Hs|1.0}} 60 px|alt=Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start|link=Saud bin Salman Al Saud|Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start ↗
| style="text-align: left;" | Saud bin Salman Al Saud ↗ (talk ↗)
| Stub
|}

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page ↗. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

History of combinatorics ↗

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1881068886}}
I noticed you like Combinatorics ↗. I feel recent changes to History of combinatorics ↗ are pretty ridiculous. I thought you might consider working on that article. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|Mhym}}, you mean this edit ↗ from a couple days ago? I will try to find time to look it over. All the best, JBL (talk ↗) 12:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
:: Yes. See e.g. the last sentence. I seriously doubt that Stanley's impact is in Matroid Theory "and more". Mhym (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
::: Ok, thanks. Spring break is just starting, I will sit down and take a good hard look. (The diff is too complicated to read at a glance, which is my usual editing approach.) --JBL (talk ↗) 16:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Mhym}} oh it's really oddly focused on poset theory, isn't it? (Like, I'm happy to see Rota and Stanley get mentnioned, but no graph theory or Erdos? No connections to algebra or other fields? Very odd.) Well, I've started with the ancient stuff, but I'll definitely get to the contemporary section eventually and try to do something more comprehensive with that. --JBL (talk ↗) 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Question re GAN for Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group ↗

Insofar as the GA project has long struggled with advanced technical topics, and 1a has been reviewed for this, I can accept that this topic's broad audience is people who have studied mathematics to higher education level. You're probably aware that this article is currently the oldest unreviewed GA nomination, probably because of that. I won't commit to taking on the review, but to help judge if I think I could, are there any comparable articles that are GAs you'd recommend I could look over? Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Kingsif}}, thanks very much for reaching out -- I've been embroiled in the worst parts of Wikipedia recently, and your message is a nice reminder that it mostly consists of people volunteering their time to collaborate to make good content. One comparator is the featured article Affine symmetric group ↗, which is pretty technical (but not quite to the same degree). In this comment ↗, David Eppstein mentioned two or three other articles that might be good comparisons. I'm not super involved in the GA process, so I think those are the best examples I can suggest.
:I was aware when I submitted it originally that this might happen -- and it must be the oldest unreviewed GA by a wide margin at this point. I did just make some edits to try to make the lead section a little gentler (following a nice concrete suggestion by Russ Woodroofe), and it's possible it will move a bit further in that direction (I solicited more input on the talk-page earlier today), but probably not much. So let me also take the opportunity of your message to commit that if you decide that this review is beyond you, I'll withdraw it with no hard feelings (and perhaps you can explain to me how to properly do so), so that those of you who do the hard work at GAN won't have it as a yoke on your neck any more.
:All the best, JBL (talk ↗) 01:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Kingsif}}, I wanted to check in about this. If you think you might be able to do a review, that would be lovely (and no rush, I'll be on vacation for most of the rest of July). But if not, please let me know and I'll see about withdrawing the nomination, as it's really lingered a hideously long time at this point. Thanks, JBL (talk ↗) 17:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
::Hi JBL, I think I'll take it on, I've looked over Dehn invariant ↗ in particular - I was thinking how I'd go about a review and applying GA criteria to something I don't really understand, but I think if I lay out my comments as simple, clear, and attached to the criteria as I can, it should be alright. Sorry for not laying this out or starting review yet (I've had a work thing so editing has been more drip-feed rather than throwing myself into something like this.) Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, great, thanks! No apology needed, to be sure, and no rush -- I will probably not be able to spend focused energy on editing until after I return in the last week of July. Looking forward to working with you, and thanks again! --JBL (talk ↗) 23:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Your GA ↗ nomination of Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group ↗

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group/GA1{{!}}begun reviewing ↗ the article Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group ↗ you nominated for GA ↗-status according to the criteria ↗. 20px|link= ↗ This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.   Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Recent revert on perfect number

I don't think the editor that you recently reverted on perfect number ↗ is Xayahrainie43. It was by an editor geolocating to Russia who mainly edits big-number topics. Xayahrainie43 generally geolocates to Taiwan and has more varied interests. I agree with your revert itself, of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

:Huh, you're right -- not sure how I stumbled into this particular confusion, maybe just because the basic behaviorial profile is somewhat similar. Will try to not mix that up any more. Thanks! --JBL (talk ↗) 19:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Temporary account IP viewer granted

right|80px|alt=The temporary account IP viewer logo, composed of the Wikipedia globe with a user and an IP address ↗
Hello, JayBeeEll. Per your request, your account has been granted ↗ '''temporary account IP viewer ↗''' rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts ↗ that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer ↗ for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy ↗.

Access should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.

Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.

Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. Happy editing! – robertsky (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group ↗ has passed

Your good article nomination ↗ of the article Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group ↗ has 20px|alt=|link= ↗ '''passed'''; congratulations! See Talk:Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group/GA1{{!}}the review page ↗ for more information. If the article is eligible to appear ↗ in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it ↗ within the next seven days.  Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

:Congratulations on the pass JBL! Gramix13 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Kingsif|Gramix13}} Thank you both very much for the hard work that went into the review! Kingsif, I am really grateful that you took on the challenge of reviewing something so esoteric, and Gramix13, thanks again for providing such thorough comments.
::While I'm here: I spent 5 minutes thinking about whether there was anything DYK-able in the current article, and gave up: I couldn't think of anything that would make it past the rule {{tq|The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic.}} There are a number of things in the article that I think would make a good DYK-equivalent in the ''Notices of the AMS ↗'', but I didn't find anything that I thought was genuinely ''generally'' interesting. If you happen to think I'm wrong about this, please let me know. --JBL (talk ↗) 23:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sokoban deadlock

Hello @JayBeeEll, thanks for your edit to the Sokoban article! I appreciate your contribution. However, I think the previous text explains this kind of deadlock situation better, although I liked your description and it’s easy to understand after seeing Deadlock 1.

The phrase:
"A box pushed against a wall, leaving it trapped indefinitely."
is intended to express that once a box is pushed against a wall, it becomes impossible to use it effectively, for reasons such as (see symbology below):

1 - There are no storage locations (goals) along that wall, so the box cannot be pushed onto a goal. For example:
<pre>
#######
# #
#$@ #
# .#
# #
# #
#######
</pre>

2 - As you mentioned, the wall has no gaps, so the box cannot be moved to another useful place.

3 - There may be a storage location along the wall, but it's already occupied by another box:
<pre>
#######
# #
#$@ #
# .#
#* #
# #
#######
</pre>

Scenarios that are NOT a deadlock:
<pre>
#######
#. #
# #
#* #
# #
#$@ #
# #
#######
</pre>

In this case, although the newly pushed box (A) cannot be pushed directly onto the storage location at the top, it is possible to move the already stored box (B) to the free storage location, and then push box A to the newly available goal. So this is not a deadlock.

Wall with gaps:
<pre>
######
### #
#. #
## #
#$@ #
# #
# #
#######
</pre>
Here, the box can be pushed into the storage location through the gap, so it's not trapped.

The original phrase "A box pushed against a wall, leaving it trapped indefinitely." aims to cover all deadlock cases of this type, excluding scenarios like the ones above that are not deadlocks.

What do you think about this explanation? Should we restore the previous text, or is "A box pushed against a wall that has no gaps." maybe more illustrative? Or what about:
"A box pushed against a wall with no gaps, leaving it trapped."?

----
Symbology:
<pre>
# wall
@ player
$ box

box on storage location

. storage location
</pre>

Carloseow (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Carloseow}}, there are six bad things that can happen listed there. Each of the other five is a description, in words, of precisely what the problematic arrangement is. "A box pushed against a wall, leaving it trapped indefinitely" does not explain the nature of the obstruction: it does not convey, in words, what the defining feature of the arrangement "box against a wall" is that "leaves it trapped indefinitely"; it also applies to arrangements 3 and 4, and arguably also 1 and 6. --JBL (talk ↗) 23:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
::(Sorry, got interrupted, submitted before I finished my response.) One reason that this is tricky to write is that arrangement 2 is slightly different from the other five: there are still moves that can be made (although none of them can be helpful in any way). But it seems difficult to convey this and fit the format of how the paragraph is set up. The previous text ("continuous wall") was not clear, either (without the picture I wouldn't have understood what it meant). I am not likely to continue editing the article, and I do not insist on my wording or anything else. --JBL (talk ↗) 00:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Hello @JayBeeEll, thanks!
:::What about for arrangement 2: "A box pushed against a large wall, and the box can be pushed again along the wall, but not onto a storage location." ? Carloseow (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Another: "A box pushed against a large wall can still be pushed again along the wall but not onto a storage location." Carloseow (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I think this can work: "A box that can be pushed along a large wall but cannot reach any storage location." Carloseow (talk) 05:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi Carloseow, to me, the adjective "large" does not capture the essential feature of the wall: there could be a large wall that nevertheless is not a problem (because it ends at a gap). What does the source say about this? ----JBL (talk ↗) 19:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

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

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

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

:{{ping|Tensorproduct}} Here are two completely unrelated things I've observed you do on Wikipedia: (1) write articles about mathematics or mathematicians. (2) personalize disputes unnecessarily, and bring old disputes up in unrelated contexts ("axe-grinding"). Sometimes in the course of doing activity (1), you've come across people who disagree with you about what makes a good Wikipedia article in some way, or who misunderstand something you've done; this is a normal part of human interaction on Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia editors handle friction in these situations by following the guidance laid out in policies and guidelines like WP:AGF ↗ and WP:FOC ↗. I wish that you also did that, instead of doing (2). (Observe in particular that the two activities (1) and (2) are completely independent of each other.) --JBL (talk ↗) 00:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:Separately, I apologize for using the action of closing the off-topic discussion to also criticize you; I think {{u|Tito Omburo}} was correct to question whether this was appropriate, and I have revised to remove the characterization of you from the box summary. I don't know what you mean that you couldn't answer my comment (it is certainly technically possible to edit the section, e.g. by pressing the "edit" button in the section heading in desktop mode). --JBL (talk ↗) 00:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::1) You claimed that what I said was a ''"gross misrepresentation of those events"'' but you didn't show us where this was a ''"gross misrepresentation"''.
::2) You mentiond the Wikipedia:Assume good faith ↗ but again you claim that ''"I personalize disputes unnecessarily, and bring old disputes up in unrelated contexts".'' I only write mathematics articles and that is 99.99% of my actions I do here. To reduce my actions on Wikipedia to "personalize disputes" '''is''' a gross missrepresentation of what I do here.
::3) The user Ldm1954 tried a second time to prevent one of my articles with dubious claims. The claims had zero substance and I wanted to show that. I just stated what happen before, it's the truth and everybody can read it in the article history. This user has not written 1 mathematics article.
::4) I act in good faith writing articles and the mistake was done by another user - yet you attack me and claiming I did not act in good faith. Maybe you should think whether your actions in the end are helping the mathematics on wikipedia or not. Your actions will sure contribute to my departure from Wikipedia.--Tensorproduct (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::As elsewhere, your responses here hopelessly muddle two activities of yours on Wikipedia: writing articles, and interacting with other editors. My criticisms of you are entirely related to the second activity. I would be willing to continue this discussion on my talk-page only under the conditions that you acknowledge that these are two separate activities, and agree to restrict attention in this discussion to the second one (your interactions with other users). Do you accept these terms? --JBL (talk ↗) 17:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I did not want to interact with anyone here and certainly not Ldm1954, he came back trying to prevent once more one of my articles out of the blue. If people support the actions of other users trying to prevent articles, then I am no longer wasting my time here writing any articles. No wonder there are very few active mathematicians here.--Tensorproduct (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::If you don't want to interact with people, then (1) why are you pestering me on my talk-page?, and (2) Wikipedia may not be for you, since it is fundamentally a colaborative project, governed by policies like Wikipedia:Civility ↗ and Wikipedia:Ownership of content ↗, that you are obligated to abide by as long as you contribute here.
:::::Frankly, I do not think that the reason there are too few active mathematicians here is because mathematicians are unpleasant, self-absorbed people who are unable to treat others collaboratively and respectfully, as you seem to suggest. In any case, since you do not wish to interact people, I would be happy if you were to not prolong this particular interaction any further. --JBL (talk ↗) 17:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:The closure was appropriate, and should not be reversed - thanks, JayBeeEll. The RfC was poorly constructed, and cannot conceivably come to a useful consensus. I'm not even saying we shouldn't revisit the previous RfC - it ended without consensus, after all - but the one you opened is going to be a time sink with no useful outcome. With all due respect, please drop this. If you feel the need for an immediate RfC, at least workshop it a little such that it will not get mired in procedural trouble. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::@Vanamonde93, the issue as I see it is that the prior RFC ended with what would appear to be consensus against "Gender-critical", but no consensus for what the alternative is. Given Sandstein's refussal to clarify what WP:NOCON ↗ entailed, further discussion is necessary. ''TarnishedPath''talk 00:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, further discussion is necessary. That does not mean an immediate RfC, and an eventual RfC needs to have a neutral opening statement. Yours did not, which is why it has seen a slew of procedural objections. Please leave the closure be, and open a discussion to find another way forward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm still not seeing that the question was not neutral. It stated that there were 5 usages of the term "gender-critical" which weren't attributed. That fact was verfiable. Anyone could go to the PermanentLink I provide and see that gender-critical was in the article 5 times and without any quotation makes. ''TarnishedPath''talk 00:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::::Neutrality with respect to article content and neutrality in posing an RfC question are quite different. Your opening statement prejudged the question being asked. And asking whether something is NPOV-compliant is not a useful RfC question. And ultimately even if you can't see it that way, the fact that any number of participants are rejecting the RfC should be indication enough that it's a problem. That's the last I'll say about this unless you're still interesting in reopening that RfC. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::::I gave a longer response below but let me just add that {{tq|even if you can't see it that way, the fact that any number of participants are rejecting the RfC should be indication enough that it's a problem.}} is the crucial point of the close: RfCs as a mechanism don't work when a large fraction of participants reject their validity in good faith. It is always better to spend the extra time making sure that participants ''on all sides'' agree about what question an RfC should settle before starting one. --JBL (talk ↗) 17:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:::As I said in my own closure, I think the best way to go about resolving the ambiguity of the no consensus closure would be to workshop alternatives that would be able to gain consensus on the article. And if that's not possible without more clarification by the closer of the previous RFC, perhaps a closure review may be necessarily that is specifically focused on overturning the implications of a no consensus on this RFC and does ''not'' relitigate the RFC. However I think a closure review carries the risk of prolonging the debate without any novel solutions being put forth that could reasonably succeed, so I think for now the focus should be on workshopping those new solutions before putting forth another RFC, preferably one that is worded neutrally. Gramix13 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
::::There was no relitigation. It was different questions in each RFC. ''TarnishedPath''talk 00:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|TarnishedPath}}, thanks for your message. Any realistic outcome conclusion of the RfC you started could reasonably have been reached as a conclusion in the prior RfC; this is what I believe the plurality of voices in the RfC meant when they said it was a rehash. More generally, I have difficulty imagining any RfC in which the eight editors in the first 30 hours !vote "bad RfC" or equivalent leading to a consensus for anything. I think it is clear that more discussion on the topics treated by both RfCs is required; hopefully, through good-faith discussion, editors will be able to identify sufficiently precise and focused points of disagreement that future discussion (possibly via RfC) will be able to settle them.
:With respect to whether the RfC statement was neutral, I think that the argument that it was not is based on the inclusion of potentially contestable statements (e.g., in the first sentence) as a framing mechanism. I do not have a personal opinion about whether those framing statements are accurate or not (I have not read the article), but it seems to me that that is the main focus of the objection. The question "should these statements be in wiki-voice, be attributed to particular people, or be removed?" seems like a totally appropriate discussion topic; indeed you started ↗ such a discussion already, and I think it would have been a more promising approach to allow that discussion to develop, rather than rushing to a new RfC. --JBL (talk ↗) 17:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | September 2025 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Householder

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

Guide to temporary accounts

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

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

'''How do temporary accounts work?'''

thumb|350px|Editing from a temporary account ↗

When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: <code>~2025-12345-67</code> (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).

All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.

A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer ↗ (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.

As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:

* There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).

* There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

'''Temporary account IP viewer user right'''

thumb|350px|How to enable IP Reveal ↗

Administrators may grant the '''temporary account IP viewer ↗''' (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting ↗. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV ↗)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.

Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy ↗ via Special:Preferences ↗ or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

'''Impact for administrators'''

It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock ↗ option.

It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.

Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions ↗, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions ↗ for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

'''Rules about IP information disclosure'''

Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally ↗ not allowed (e.g. {{!tq|~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1}} or {{!tq|~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1}}).

Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. {{tq|~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR ↗}}, but not {{!tq|Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67}})

See {{section link|Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer|What can and can't be said}} for more detailed guidelines.

'''Useful tools for patrollers'''

It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card ↗, available in {{Preferences|Appearance|Advanced options|check={{int:checkuser-userinfocard-enable-preference-description}}}}

* This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.

Special:IPContributions ↗ allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.

Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions ↗ supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.

The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

'''Videos'''
<gallery>
Temporary Accounts demo - IP Contributions.webm|How to use Special:IPContributions
Temporary Accounts demo - IP Auto-reveal.webm|How automatic IP reveal works
Temporary Accounts demo - IP Information.webm|How to use IP Info
Temporary Accounts demo - User Info Card.webm|How to use User Info
</gallery>

'''Further information and discussion'''

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

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

Fundamental theorem of calculus

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

:Hi {{ping|Dedhert.Jr}}, I will try to take a look sometime this week. --JBL (talk ↗) 21:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::Take your time. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi {{ping|Dedhert.Jr|p=,}} I had a first read through your draft and I want to make sure I understand what I'm looking at. Is it correct to summarize the big-picture changes as follows, working from top to bottom?
:::* the expansion of the History section into two parts, one that is history and one that is general background on calculus;
:::* the removal of two uncited sections on intuition;
:::* restructuring the main mathematical sections so that each half of the theorem is immediately followed by its proof, rather than giving statements of several theorems in one ssection and proofs in several subsequent sections; and
:::* removal of the uncited Examples section
:::(and also the addition or improvement of references in the parts that are not removed). Is there anything major that changed aside from these points? Thanks, --JBL (talk ↗) 19:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::For examples section, I could added anyway. I was hoping to connect the calculus topic background to those fundamental theorems, in addition to recap. The second theorem section, somehow, has a good illustration for description, which I cannot figure it out where to place it. Any ideas, or any additional ideas you want to pour in? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hi {{ping|Dedhert.Jr|p=,}} I'm not entirely sure that I understood this message. Is it an answer to my questions? If so, could I ask you to be a bit more direct in response? Thanks, --JBL (talk ↗) 00:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Okay let me rephrase. I replied to your comment on summarize: my point in this draft is to rewrite the whole article, which includes the removal of sections on intuition, adding the examples for each fundamental theorem, and restructure the theorem sections followed by the proof, as you suggested.
::::::At the same time, I would like to connect the definition of integral and derivative in the "background" section to the fundamental theorems per WP:MTAU ↗, which might be helpful to understand the proof as well. I have no idea how to do it, and perhaps I could probably rewrite it as well and follow the book sources. The same reason when I was trying to keep the illustration for the second theorem.
::::::Let me know if you have some comments for improvements or found some flaws in my ideas. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, that helps. I will take another look through and see if I can come up with some substantive/constructive thoughts. --JBL (talk ↗) 00:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Hi {{u|Dedhert.Jr}}, I wanted to apologize that it's taking me so long to get to this; I haven't forgotten, and I hope to say something meaningful later this month. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Like I said. Take your time. You can give the comments anytime. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Hi {{u|Dedhert.Jr}},
:::::::::Here are some (rather scattered) thoughts:
:::::::::* It is odd that the current article takes so very long to get around to the statement of either part of the theorem; I think there is definitely something to be said about a structure like yours where the statements come earlier.
:::::::::* The section 'Sketch of geometric proof' in the present article is totally unsourced, but I believe that in principle it could be sourceable. Compared with the first, informal proof in your version, it has a higher ratio of words to symbols; it is closer to how I present the proof in class, i.e., I feel that it is less technical and more approachable.
:::::::::* You have grouped the proofs together with the theorem statements; I am ambivalent about that choice (I think it has advantages and disadvantages); I could imagine other editors strongly prefering one way or the other.
:::::::::* Your version has removed the (totally unsourced) section on examples. Some section of examples is definitely warranted in this article and definitely sourceable (I don't know about the specific content in the current article).
:::::::::* I think your additional background on calculus is a nice idea.
:::::::::* Because I have dilly-dallied so long in responding to you, there have been some changes in the article; especially, there has been the addition by {{u|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction}} of a new (sourced) section 'Variations in terminology', based on discussion on the article talk-page. I think that section should certainly be included.
:::::::::* There are some issues with English grammar and wording in your version; it would benefit from a copy edit by a native English speaker fluent in mathematics. I would be willing to do this, but I would wait until it the last minute (i.e., until you are otherwise ready to go).
:::::::::I hope that these comments are useful; please let me know if there is any other way I can help. All the best, --JBL (talk ↗) 00:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::@JayBeeEll. Our current article is somewhat disorganized. That is why I was trying to wrap into two different theorems, each has a background, statement, and proofs. About the proofs, should we ask more opinions since I rewrote them from the given citation? For the grammar problem, I could count on you, as long as we make it less technical, instead of solely hieroglyphics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

</div>
</div>

Wondering about <math>\N_0</math>

Hi, I just saw your edit from the other day ↗ replacing <math>\N_0</math> with <math>\N</math>, and I was wondering about your comment: why is it "a terrible notation that no one should use?" The previous <math>\Z_{\ge 0}</math> is much less appealing to me than <math>\N_0</math>, plus I have the impression the latter is very common (no stats, just ''feels''...). Thanks, o_andras (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|o_andras}}, thanks for your message. As soon as I submitted that edit summary I thought "oh that was a bit too strident", but it was too late to tone it down -- sorry about that.
:There are large communities of people for whom <math>\N</math> always means the positive integers, and also large communities of people for whom <math>\N</math> always means the nonnegative integers (as described at Natural number ↗); maybe there are also people who go both ways, I'm not sure. For the first group of people the notation <math>\N_0</math> has only one thing it could mean, but it's never used by the second group, and its meaning is not transparent for them. The notation <math>\Z_{\geq 0}</math> is clunky but has the virtue that its meaning is completely transparent, regardless of one's attitude about <math>\N</math>. --JBL (talk ↗) 21:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
::All good, I understand. I'm in the "<math>\N</math> includes zero but make that explicit to everyone else" camp. :) Might be better to revert to <math>\Z_{\ge 0}</math>, then? It's the most explicit, as you say. --o_andras (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi {{ping|o_andras|p=,}} okay, we belong to the same tribe :). At present it seems to me like the article is consistent in using <math>\N</math> for the nonnegative integers, so the one copy of <math>\N_0</math> to represent the nonnegative integers was incongruous, and likewise one single copy of <math>\Z_{\geq 0}</math> for the same set would be incongruous. Personally I try to avoid making edits like swapping an entire article from one reasonable notation to another reasonable notation (but that needn't be binding on anyone else), in the spirit of MOS:FORMULA ↗ and MOS:STYLERET ↗. The virtue of the ambiguity of <math>\N</math> is that I think everyone realizes it has two possible meanings (and what they are), so as long as it's explained ''somewhere'' which choice has been made, the reader should be okay. --JBL (talk ↗) 19:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Please explain

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

:oh and I forgot to @ you; @JayBeeEll. Lex Luthor :) 16:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::Hi {{ping|Lexical Ambuiguity Fixer|p=,}} I reverted your edit because it was unsourced and because I do not find it plausible that the misspelling "Rubix" is in widespread use, as represented by reliable sources on the topic. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I see. Lex Luthor :) 18:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

OOPS

Sorry for this ↗ {{facepalm}} - DVdm (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Poor edit

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

:{{ping|Kevincook13}} Instead of separately reaching out to every editor who reverts one of your edits on their individual talk-pages, it would be better to put discussion on the article talk-page, which is the appropriate venue to establish a consensus about edits to an article. The short answer to your question is that I find Deacon Vorbis's comment ↗ on a different edit to be a compelling description of this edit as well, as well as of the general pattern of your editing. I am willing to discuss further, but only in the appropriate venue, Talk:Sequence ↗. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::@JayBeeEll: I was hoping that you would explain why you thought that my edit was poor. I can explain why I think it is needed. It clarifies meaning. Currently, we begin our article by stating that a sequence is an enumerated collection. Later, in a section discussing formal definitions, we state that a sequence is a function without explaining why we defined the term differently at the beginning of the article. Such poor editing confuses meaning. Kevincook13 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kevincook13}} Which part of the sentence {{tq|I am willing to discuss further, but only in the appropriate venue, Talk:Sequence ↗}} was unclear to you? --JBL (talk ↗) 18:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
::::@JayBeeEll The part I don't understand is what you mean by discuss further. You haven't discussed my edit at all, except to state that it was poor. One word of characterization is hardly a discussion. I expect that when one editor reverts another editors work, the revert will include an explanation. You failed to explain the reason you reverted my edit, when you reverted it. You have also failed to provide an explanation here on your talk page. Further, I don't see one on the Sequence talk page, and I have no faith that I will see one there in the future. I believe that you don't have one, that you are willing to frankly admit. Kevincook13 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}

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

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

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 1px solid #eaecf0; background: #f0feff; color: #202122; padding: 1.5em; margin-bottom: 1.5em; border-radius: 6px; box-shadow: 0 1px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.08);"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 150%; font-weight: 600;" | January–February 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | New pages patrol ↗
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points.

The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026.

The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive.

Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants.

Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points.

Streak awards ↗ will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds.

Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles ↗ previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Interested in participating? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:90%; color:#54595d; padding-top:15px;"|You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here ↗.
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Socking

{{ping|Izno|DrKay}} sorry I can't (for uninteresting reasons) file an SPI at this moment, but you both reverted {{user links|~2025-37349-34}} a few weeks ago and they're now clearly back as {{user links|ImperialHouse}}. But also this is probably the same person as {{user links|Unfriendnow}}: compare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carole_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1256406013 ↗ vs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carole_Radziwill&diff=prev&oldid=1330413584 ↗ and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Radziwi%C5%82%C5%82&diff=prev&oldid=1330413558 ↗ vs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Radziwi%C5%82%C5%82&diff=prev&oldid=1195419342 ↗ (I'll file an SPI in a couple days when I have the chance if you don't have the opportunity to act on it -- and happy new year!) --JBL (talk ↗) 20:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

:I was tagged in this. i don't know either accounts, and If I reverted something, I am sorry, and I definitly did not mean to revert something that was already reverted. I believe you are referencing a change I made to Template:Hanoverian royal family ↗. The reason I made that edit, was because When making a list of royals, there titles in that royal family should be used. Alessandra de Osma is her name, but in regards to the Hanoverian royal family, she is ''Princess Christian of Hanover.'' This is because her husband is Prince Christian of Hanover, and in the German tradition, a wife takes her husbands title in entirety. ImperialHouse (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
:Blocked. DrKay (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! --JBL (talk ↗) 21:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Umm...

...wow, {{diff|Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Vacant0|prev|1334624444|thank you}} ~ Lindsay ~2026-52451-8 ↗ (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation page

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

:No, they are specific kinds of sets (just as open set ↗s, closed set ↗s, partially ordered set ↗s, etc. are). This is a very straightforward application of WP:PTM ↗: disambiguation pages are not for partial title matches like this. If you are inclined to respond with anything that contains the words "general audience" or "academics" or equivalent formulations, or that includes any version of the idea that "set" really means "finite set" or vice-versa, please just skip it and to save me the trouble of removing your message. --JBL (talk ↗) 20:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::That term "set" is the issue. Used alone, one cannot be certain exactly what concept is being referenced, even if we specify that it is being used in mathematics. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::The Wikipedia article about the mathematical concept "set" is the article Set (mathematics) ↗. It is the unique article on Wikipedia about that topic. The other articles you added are not about the mathematical concept "set" any more than the article Open set ↗ is, they are about specific families, kinds, or types of sets, and this situation is precisely what WP:PTM ↗ addresses. I know that you ''dislike'' the article Set (mathematics) ↗ and object in some obscure way to the situation that it is what it is, but that is completely irrelevant. --JBL (talk ↗) 21:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::The article should be about one definite and distinct concept, but it isn't. Kevincook13 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
:::::I know that you ''dislike'' the article Set (mathematics) ↗ and object in some obscure way to the situation that it is what it is, but that is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. --JBL (talk ↗) 21:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::i noticed that you didn't disagree. Kevincook13 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
::::::: For the complete avoidance of doubt: I have been attempting to be polite to you, but your position is utterly unfounded, and in fact completely ridiculous. Almost nothing you have said in the various discussions where I have observed you is coherent, let alone correct. This latest angle is so transparently wrong it makes me wonder if you are engaged in some complicated kind of performance art or parody. --JBL (talk ↗) 00:11, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
: Note to future self: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1336321143#Kevincook13 ↗. --JBL (talk ↗) 20:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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

{{notice|image=Face-smile.svg|
{{center|<big>'''Someone has poured you tea ↗.'''</big>}}|small=yes}}

Just wanted to say thanks for the helpful information you provided at RS/N! I dislike leaving things on a bad note, so I will offer you this tea as a peace offering in the hopes of leaving things on a positive note and wish you well with your Wikipedia endeavours! All the best! 11WB (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
: {{ping|11WB}} Thanks for the message; sorry for editing while grumpy. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
::No worries! I realise my comment regarding the word you used could've been read as sarcasm. It was a genuine observation on my part, but I saw pretty quickly how it could be read as obtuse, so I apologise for that. The entire discussion was unnecessary in all honesty. Had I taken the time to find those older posts, I would have had the answer without needing to take up editor time. The RfC you linked genuinely was helpful! 11WB (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Contesting Removal of Reduced Primorials from Primorials page

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

WP:OR states:

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

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

See the two published articles below:

'''''On The Infinity of Twin Primes and other K-tuples'''''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:{{ping|Jzakiya}} Sorry but these papers are obviously not reliable sources (they come down on the wrong side of nearly every bullet-point at WP:SCHOLARSHIP ↗), but even if they were the addition would not be appropriate because of WP:DUE ↗. Since I have no doubt you will not just take my word for this, I invite you to open a discussion at either WP:RSN ↗ or WT:WPM ↗ with the following neutral question, or some reasonable variant thereof: "Are the papers https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/867/678 and https://ijmcr.in/index.php/ijmcr/article/view/1099/837 reliable sources for this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primorial&diff=1344333936&oldid=1343010923 addition to the article Primorial ↗? This was disputed by User:JayBeeEll, who suggested I post here for additional opinions." {{pbr}} Finally, while it is not relevant to the content questions (WP:OR ↗/WP:DUE ↗), you should also take care to respect the behavioral guideline WP:PROMO ↗. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::I assume you didn't read the papers and see how the topic of '''''reduced primorials''''' was developed and used in them. The only argument you make is to subjectively question the journal the papers appear in as a proxy to not evaluating the topic in the papers on its own basis. It would be more helpful to explain, mathematically, how the topic of '''''reduced primorials''''' does not merit inclusion as an expanded understanding to the general topic of '''''primorials''''', which was the sole purpose of its inclusion. They have a very important role, conceptually and computationally in number theory, and people should know what they are.
::I will raise the question of their restored inclusion on the discussion groups you suggested. Jzakiya (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Ok. --JBL (talk ↗) 23:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::::As you suggested, I created a topic of discussion on this here.
::::en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Re-inclusion_of_Reduced_Primorials_within_Primorials_page Jzakiya (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

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

P=NP article

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

:Hi {{u|ErnestKrause}}, neither of your edits had any discernable relationship to lead-body coherence that I can see. I would be happy to discuss this in more depth, but may I propose we do it at the article talk-page Talk:P versus NP problem ↗ so that other editors of the page will also have the opportunity to weigh in? --JBL (talk ↗) 20:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
::OK, I've moved it there. I'll look forward to your comments when you have time to get around to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Thanks. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

elementary symmetric polynomial reversion

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

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

Weak Base article

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

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

Notification of proposed decision

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

certainly not

I am sorry, what is the problem here ↗? 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 ↗ 21:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
:"G.H. Hardy" is not the last name of an author (ditto the other). I have since cleaned the whole section up. --JBL (talk ↗) 18:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
::Neither was "G.H. Hardy and E.W. Wright" a last name. Undoing my edit was unnecessary. Thanks for the cleanup. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 ↗ 20:47, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on Three fair coin flips tree diagram

Hello,

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

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

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

Euler number/characteristic confusion

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

:Hi {{u|AndyrooP}}, can I suggest we move this discussion to Talk:Euler numbers ↗? I don't find this especially compelling but rather than the two of us disagree it would be more natural to hear from other editors and see what they think. (We could also solicit additional views at WT:WPM ↗ or WP:3O ↗.) --JBL (talk ↗) 17:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
::Sure, I went ahead and added discussion to Talk:Euler numbers ↗. AndyrooP (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

{| style="border: 2px solid #36c; border-radius: 4px; background: linear-gradient(to right, #ffffff, #eaf3ff); padding: 10px; color: #000;"
| style="vertical-align: middle; font-size: 130%" | May 2026 Backlog Drive ↗ | '''New pages patrol ↗''' 
| rowspan=3 | right|100px ↗
|-
|

On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.

Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.

Each review will earn 1 point.

Interested in taking part? '''Sign up here ↗'''.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. ↗
|}
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}}
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

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

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

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

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

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

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

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

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

'''PageTriage'''

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

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

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

{{refend}}
</div>

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

Are you JBL (wrestler) ↗?

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

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

New chess piece images

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

:No apology necessary. As I recall, you made some additions that I objected to, based on WP:OR ↗/WP:UGC ↗. What are your thoughts? --JBL (talk ↗) 18:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
::So about those ferz and wazir images in particular...
::Those images are sourced from ''The Chess Variant'' ''Pages''. You said that it's not a reliable source and that's why you removed them - but I wish to make a counterargument. There are already several articles on this website that use ''The Chess Variant'' ''Pages'' as a source - and I believe if those can pass muster, these images should too. Sammy2012 (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi {{u|Sammy2012}}, thanks for your message. I don't think I'm the one who reverted you on ferz and wazir specifically, but I'm happy to talk with you about it. It is my longstanding opinion that ''The Chess Variant Pages'' is basically just a webforum, blog or other self-published source for purposes of reliability. The relevant Wikipedia guidelines are WP:RS ↗, WP:SPS ↗, and WP:DUE ↗. Such sources can be useful for some things (especially in the context of WP:EXPERTSPS ↗), but in my opinion the statement "the symbol for the fairy chess piece X is Y" (or even the claim "the fairy chess piece X ''has a standard symbol''") is pretty much automatically dubious because "symbols for fairy chess pieces" only barely have an existence beyond a very small number of hobbyists. I think it is unlikely that you will succeed in getting me to change my longstanding view on this point. However, it is not actually necessary for you to change my opinion in order to make edits, it is just necessary for there to be a consensus of editors. The best ways to get such a consensus would be to open discussions in a venue like an article talk-page (if it's just one article) or WP:Third opinion ↗ (if a discussion has only involved two editors and they disagree), or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess ↗ (if you want to solicit the views of editors who specifically edit chess articles) or WP:RSN ↗ (if you want to solicit the views of editors who specifically are interested in the question of what makes a source reliable). I would be grateful if you would ping me in any such discussion that you started.
:::(As a side-note: the specific argument "X is done on some Wikipedia page, so it should also be done on this one" is not generally regarded as very convincing in Wikipedia discussions, as Wikipedia articles get to be the way they are by all sorts of random processes, and most of them have deficiencies of one kind or another. It's possible that some uses of the Chess Variant Pages that currently exist I would have objected to if I had been aware of them, that some are used in ways that I wouldn't have objected to but for reasons that don't apply here, or many other scenarios.) --JBL (talk ↗) 17:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Okay, I've started a topic on WikiProject Chess's talk page. Sammy2012 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)