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 Sorry for adding to it – I don't actually know how to continue a discussion that's been archived there, to be honest.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)