User talk:David Eppstein

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. For discussions concerning specific Wikipedia articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

Fixing Newswire sources

Hello David Eppstein, I hope you are well. On the page MyRadar, you recently tagged each of the Newswire sources as unreliable. I believe I was able to use them in an unbiased manner, but what do you think? I can remove them and their associated claims if need but, but I feel they still add some important information which could be lost if they were removed. I am committed to making the article the best it can be, so whatever you think is the best move forward I can do. Cheers! Johnson524 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

They are press releases from a company involved in the product. Being collected by a press release scraper site does not make them any more reliable than if they were on the company web site. They do not meet WP:RS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m sorry, so do you want me to remove all of these sources, or is there any way this information can still be used? Johnson524 19:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want it to be a Good Article nominee, everything in the article needs to be supported by reliable sources. So removing them would be best, to make clear that nothing in the article is based on them. But that may also mean removing some information if it cannot be found in better sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Y Sounds good, thank you for the advice. Cheers! Johnson524 22:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Acyclics

Thanks for catching that about math vs. cs. I mistook the commas. Zaslav (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Maya Stein

Hi David, I'm trying to write an article on Maya Stein. Could you please take a look at User:McKay/sandbox and let me know if I can do better? I'll add a photo if Maya agrees. Feel free to edit there. Cheers, Brendan. McKay (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some small changes. It's more or less at the start-class that I usually aim for in new articles, but there are still some unsourced claims, particularly the postdoc. Also, Diestel should probably have an article. There was a bad one created in late 2021 (in worse shape than your current draft) but it was moved to draft space and subsequently deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't mention her middle name? It is Jakobine (according to the title tag here). And if you google "maya jakobine stein" you may be able to find more about her. Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's something we can sometimes omit per WP:BLPPRIVACY. But given its prominent mention on her home page that may not be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I dunno, it is something to think about. I'll leave it up to McKay. Polygnotus (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

PS New article: Reinhard Diestel. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Maya Stein. McKay (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for creating this! I agree it was ready to promote to mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Maya asked me to write "German". I'll ask again if she would prefer "German–Chilean". Incidentally, please see Talk:Maya Stein. McKay (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Pointing out that a good option when nationality is fuzzy or disputed is sometimes to just leave it out. Also, David Eppstein, the "use dmy dates" template that you added doesn't seem to be reformatting dates. Is it doing what you intended? It looks better to me without the "cs1=ly" parameter (but I'm not sure that I'm not missing something). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Use dmy dates + cs1=ly means: Use dmy dates for publication dates but numeric YYYY-MM-DD dates for access dates and archive dates. That is the effect I see in the references. It is my default preference in date formatting (modulo nationality of subject for dmy vs mdy) but your mileage may vary. There is only one publication date visible, and I see it in the correct format: "Guacolda Antoine Lazzerini (13 May 2022)". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arrangement of lines

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arrangement of lines you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Electrou -- Electrou (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Question regarding inclusion of new material in the Kobon Triangle Problem

Is there a specific pipeline for something like the k=19 or k=21 arrangements, which have very clear visual proofs, to be accessible for citation? For example, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Would an image of an arrangement with clear visual properties fitting the description fall under this policy, if it were within a valid primary source?

Personally, I would have liked to have known that a perfect arrangement had been found months ago for k=21. This isn't to say the rules are wrong for keeping that knowledge from me or anything, I understand the purpose of proper procedure, I am simply wondering what options are available for such a procedure in this specific case, given that images of the optimal arrangements for k=19 and 21 do exist online already. Thank you. BagLuke (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that we're already citing OEIS, one possibility would be to try to persuade them to extend their sequence to include the new known values. It might help for the arrangements to be shown on some other web site that OEIS could link to. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the help! BagLuke (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

{{Use dmy dates|...}} without consensus?

In the article Boolean algebra I noticed that the dates in the references were displayed in the format yyyy-mm-dd. I thought —don't know why— that the dmy format was more convenient, so I changed the overall display accordingly.

You reverted my edit with the comment "Please do not change date formats without consensus".

I apologize for my action; I did not know the rule. However, I now have a few questions:

1. Is the yyyy-mm-dd format preferred over the dmy format?
2. Otherwise, with whom must the consensus be reached?
3. Is it allowed to add a new line {{Use dmy dates|...}} to an article where dates are displayed in different (heterogeneous) formats without prior consensus?

Marc Schroeder (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

No standard date format is preferred over others except in cases where a topic has strong national ties which cause one of dmy or mdy to be preferred over the other. Standard date formats for references include:

• Everything spelled out, day before month (dmy)
• Publication dates spelled out, day before month, access dates numeric (dmy + cs1-dates=ly)
• Everything spelled out, month before day (mdy)
• Publication dates spelled out, month before day, access dates numeric (mdy + cs1-dates=ly)

Having a different format for publication dates and access dates can be helpful as a way of calling more attention to the part of the reference that is more about the actual reference and less about the Wikipedia article editing history.

Despite our MOS not specifying a preference among these, it does specify that once a format is established it should not be changed without good reason. This is mostly to prevent the churn that would happen if many gnomes or bots had conflicting positions on what the best format is and went around changing formats back and forth.

I think everything numeric is also a valid option (and happens to be the one set in the Boolean algebra article with cs1-dates=y rather than ly). The "Acceptable date formats" table in MOS:DATE has a footnote [c] saying that numeric dates are ok in references as one of several "limited situations where brevity is helpful". I don't particularly like this choice; my own preference is to spell out the publication dates, at least. But since it appears to be a valid choice, I don't think it should be changed without discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

OK! Marc Schroeder (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Questions regarding the notability of a computer scientist

As a result of a recent BLP discussion, I noted this autobio of a computer scientist, Gabriel Wainer. I am tempted to take the article to AfD, however I wasn't sure how to judge his citation count/h-index [1], which is not insubstantial. However I know that these counts/h index are much higher in computer science than in some other scientific fields, so I wanted to ask you whether you thought he passed PROF on citation metrics (relative to other computer science academics) before I potentially wasted my (and others) time at AfD. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

He has multiple claims to notability among which the least ambiguous is editor-in-chief of Simulation (journal) (WP:PROF#C8). ACM Distinguished Speaker [2] is also indicative although not definitive. I think he is likely to pass an AfD and wouldn't try. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers, thank for the insight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Notability of authors and professors

Hello @David Eppstein sir, i want clear some doubts, first of all if an academic person becomes interim Dean of a University for a very short temporary period then should he will be eligible and have equal notability like the permanent dean. Second if an author have one or two books reviewed by New york times makes him notable enogh to have standalone article on Wikipedia. Thanks sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Deans are not automatically notable, interim or otherwise. One book is not enough for me for WP:AUTHOR notability. Two authored (not edited or coauthored) books, each having more than one reliably published review, would be enough to make a borderline case for notability for me. Others might disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sir i am talking about Michael Stein article , does his interview in that Peabody award-winning radio makes him notable. TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Interviews generally do not count towards notability. Also see WP:CANVASS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Instant-runoff voting regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Instant-runoff voting.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

(180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC))

Talk:Pyramid (geometry)

Opinions on this? I have no idea I have to follow every detail on all MOS. Writing with different marking and with different purpose. But the user adding bunch of apostrophes to each terms of pyramids, and to each examples of pyramids. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I definitely think the italics are overused in the current version. Each term should be italicized at most once, not each time it is introduced. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

So, are there any alternative things instead of italics and boldfaces? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You mean like, the kind of text you get without adding any formatting markup? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Then the answer is yes. If you want to get that kind of formatting, just don't use the markup to make things italic or boldface. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Noted it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Binary tiling

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binary tiling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arrangement of lines

The article Arrangement of lines you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arrangement of lines and Talk:Arrangement of lines/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Electrou -- Electrou (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Don't know why it flagged this as coming from Electrou, but I have done a review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! I'll be traveling Sunday to Thursday but I'll try to find some time to start working on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Binary tiling

The article Binary tiling you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Binary tiling and Talk:Binary tiling/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Binary tiling

The article Binary tiling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Binary tiling for comments about the article, and Talk:Binary tiling/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323 Online events: New: Asian women | Geofocus: Islands Q-Z | Women in engineering Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Annual Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) is an online campaign designed to boost Asian content on Wikipedia each November. Unreferenced articles backlog drive. These Wikiproject clean-up lists offer a start to November's backlog drive, e.g. Women's History and Women writers Tip of the month: Looking for an image? Sometimes you can find openly licensed images at search.creativecommons.org/ Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Algebra

I am not a nominator of FA Algebra, but it seems the article is already in trouble after being promoted. Do you think it is worth it, or I should say, do you have an opinion, to add incomplete tag with the reason the discussion that has been widely problematic, even thought you have not claimed the support of the status? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are already enough competent and opinionated editors in the talk page there that one more might add confusion rather than light. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the article is "complete", that notice does not seem helpful, as the only thing it provides in the way of specifics is a pointer to a long discussion, and many if not most of the issues in that thread seem to have been addressed already. (Some of those issues may also come down to matters of taste.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

Hi David,

you are kindly invited to provide third opinion in the following dispute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tercer#Quantum_entanglement_lead

Thank you so much in advance for your time. 217.118.83.168 (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Noether

I'm not asking you to agree with the critique, or even to accept that it is valid. But I am going to ask that you refrain from making it personal; it's not helping. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Error

I have tried installed User:Dedhert.Jr/ArticleQuality.js per Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1. But it seems it does not work at all. The same way for User:Dedhert.Jr/common.js. If these links are not working at all, can you delete them? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to add that line to your common.js, not just create a separate js file under a different name. Otherwise the Wikimedia software won't know to run it. As for deleting your user files, if you decide you want to do that I'd be happy to, or adding {{db-u1}} to them should get the attention of someone else who can do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just ArticleQuality.js? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Both. They are totally useless after I installed them, or should I say, it is not working at all. Maybe I am just not smart enough to do so. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ok, both gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

SR 55 about Riverside

I know SR 55 does not go through Riverside, But it’s one of the cities listed on SR 91 east at the northern end of SR 55; Then explain how Riverside is listed on such freeways such as the 405 and 5 freeways that have Riverside listed on SR 55 north. Also, Newport Beach is suppose to listed on SR 55 south70.93.208.40 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

So it's listed on a different highway. How relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok I admit it, I checked the Google Maps Street View and no control city was listed. Kylercorpus2 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

On the 73 freeway Kylercorpus2 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

For the 73-55 freeway interchange 70.93.208.40 (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Your eyes on the Gertoux AfD are appreciated. Keeping the arguments on topic seems to be beyond at least one, contributor, probably two. Coincident with your (first?) hatting, in which I have learned a new word, I made a plea at AN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I knew there would be another. You are truly an editor of many hats. Thank you for seeking to allow us to see the wheat from the abundance of chaff. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arrangement of lines

The article Arrangement of lines you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arrangement of lines for comments about the article, and Talk:Arrangement of lines/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! 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 Electrou -- Electrou (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia give this IP another chance to contribute?

Contribution: [3]. Oldid:

• [4]
• [5]

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Diffs like [6] look like WP:NOTHERE to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Moser_spindle_visual_proof.svg

Hi Prof Eppstein,

I note that you have reverted my changes with "a true proof without words would not need this long explanation" etc. It's fair enough as the caption is overly long, yet I think these articles are missing a visual proof that the chromatic number is at least 4 (as there are proofs that it is at most 7).

Could you please suggest a better way to illustrate it?

Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the existing illustration of the Moser spindle as a unit distance graph, already on those articles ALREADY provides exactly the same proof that you ask for. The proof is: try a simple case analysis. The case analysis is detailed in the article text. The existing illustration is uncolored, but choosing a coloring for the diagram is misleading: there is more than one potential coloring and you have to show that all of them don't work. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Dr Joe Flood

I notice you have removed Dr Flood's entire international section in May, without any discussion or authorisation, leaving only fairly trivial matters. As this is his major global contribution, I cannot think why you would do this. I have restored the section and hunted down extra references, if that is what you were after. Evadeluge (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I now see you have removed all useful material from the entry, leaving just a useless unreferenced stub. Why would you do such a thing? is this sabotage? Evadeluge (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I also note your speciality is mathematics, you have no expertise whatsoever in policy analysis, modelling, climate change, housing economics, indicators or international aid, and have no business making destructive wholesale edits in these areas.

This refers to joe flood Evadeluge (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Your user name suggests that you may have an undeclared conflict of interest, in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. See WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. Continued unencyclopedic additions to Joe Flood could cause it to be targeted for deletion from the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Eppstein, you are in a situation of dispute and I have reported you forthwith. There are no unencyclopaedic entries in this article, and it was established years ago there was no CoI. I will be seeking other long-standing entries you have edited maliciously. Evadeluge (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Along with those other links you also need to see WP:NPA. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note that they have now achieved a final warning under NPA. You were the target. They deleted their attack immediately after the warning. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That brought back things I had long forgotten

All these articles are now tagged for COI with a talk page rationale for each.

I've removed more copyvios and warned the editor for copyright breaches.

They do not appear to be particularly collegial. Very close to WP:NPA violation, if not beyond it. That has always been the case. This whole thing started with a WP:NOTMEMORIAL to one of them's mother or long tie associate. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see this SPI where you may be able to and wish to add your thoughts on the matter 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur with your thoughts there. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, and sorry to drag you back into all this! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I never mind any effort that it takes to remove IDHT (etc) editors. I find ROPE is a wonderful thing. The SPI will get admin attention in due course, it's just a matter of time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Good lord. I think that was the final strand of rope. A little light tit for tat quasi-subtle vandalism. Now at AIV and, presumably, someone else's problem 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 01:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe they're playing a game of how many noticeboards they can light up at once? The ironic part is I don't care much about the state of that article for the exact reason that caring about it leads to the sort of trouble they are in. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The community will, at some point, take care of the state of any article. There is never a rush. They have, at least, confirmed that they are the Marilla of Marillajoe, and they did it after more scattergun vitriol post block, obviously on their own talk page.

Ah well, "Next!"

Thank you for getting me back involved. I'm a pedantic old scrote, and infinitely polite to the impolite people we meet. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Ewa Ligocka

On 21 November 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ewa Ligocka, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ewa Ligocka cooked another mathematician's goose? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ewa Ligocka. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ewa Ligocka), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations, David – at long last! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the help getting this through! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Women in Red Barnstar
		Not only for contributing so many well presented articles on women mathematicians and scientists but for playing such an active and useful part on our talk page discussions.--Ipigott (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Guo Yike

Hi David,

I don't deal much with WP:PROF subjects so I thought I would seek your guidance on this. Does the subject Guo Yike meet the notability guideline? Subject matter is in data mining, machine learning and artificial Intelligence.

- Imcdc Contact 06:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a very high citation field. But the first thing I found from his Google Scholar profile was that he was general chair of SIGKDD 2018, already a good sign. You can't really count the citations from that one but the rest of his profile should be enough for WP:PROF#C1, even in such a high citation field. His position as provost of the university is not quite enough for #C6 (that would be Nancy Ip) but still also significant. More clear is that he holds a chair professorship at HKUST, meeting WP:PROF#C5. Even more clear from https://cse.hkust.edu.hk/admin/people/faculty/profile/yikeguo: "Professor Guo is Fellow of Royal Academy of Engineering (FREng), a Member of Academia Europaea (MAE), Fellow of Hong Kong Academy of Engineering Sciences (FHKEng), Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (FIEEE), Fellow of British Computer Society (FBCS), and Fellow of Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence (FCAAI)." The first four of these, at least, individually pass WP:PROF#C3 and the last two may well as well. He's very notable by our standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David. I have decided to take the initiative and create the article myself at Guo Yike. Feel free to add on any parts since I am not very experienced with articles of people in academia. Imcdc Contact 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to the Theory of Computation

I have nominated the Introduction to the Theory of Computation stub for deletion. I noticed you are the only editor to have included any sources on the page, so this is a courtesy ping! My reasoning for AFD is that the single contemporary review isn't notable; saving the page may be a simple matter of collecting a few other reviews/references, or perhaps a single review does in fact meet the notability guidelines for math textbooks and the AFD should be struck. Tule-hog (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

About your Wikipedia editor definition

I saw this definition at the top of your user page: Wikipedia editor (n.) Someone who will not leave a burning building until you show them the newspaper article documenting how many people were killed by the fire.

I think an more accurate definition from my personal experience^{[original research?]} would be that a Wikipedia editor would leave the building but would not write about the fire until it had become notable and adhered to WP:RSBREAKING. Peaceray (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2024

Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325 Online events: New: Women who died in 2024 | Religion Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements from other communities Women in Religion have a monthly virtual edit-a-thon and the next session is December 2nd 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. CST. For Zoom meeting details, contact Dzingle1 or RosPost. Women in Red members are welcome to join the Zoom Meeting here Tip of the month: Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Second opinion

The reviewer in Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1 has gone AWOL. Should I request deletion of the nomination discussion or a second opinion but WP:GANI#2O somehow refer this to the reviewers who cannot stand up with the topic and ask for another opinion? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk on guideline

Can I have a word with you in the letter I give it to you? I don't think talking here is a good idea. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr (talk page watcher) For the sake of clarity, do you mean to email David something or send them snail mail? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC) (signing again to make the ping work)

Yes, stalker. And the conversation is not over yet. I somehow don't want to spill out the discussion here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr If you want to email David, you can do so by going to Special:EmailUser/David_Eppstein. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

They already did. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for systematic reviews

Dear @David Eppstein,

I wanted to thank you for your invaluable comments on WP:AfD/Rolf-Peter Horstmann and WP:AfD/Mehrdad Vahabi (just to name a few).

So I was wondering is there a reliable way to finding all the reviews of a certain work, in a way that you systemically find all of them? (For example this article Ludwig Siep, has been marked as WP:1R, and I only have been able to find one review of their book published in English. But I sense there could be more.) Best. Xpander (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I usually just try searching for either the author's name or the titles of the books on both Google Scholar and JSTOR. JSTOR is especially helpful because it has an advanced search mode where you can check a box to search only the book reviews, and it's available through The Wikipedia Library. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, David Eppstein. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

It was sent a couple of days back. Just wanted to check if it reached you. – SD0001 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We have a proper applications process. I typically ghost unsolicited out-of-process applications. In you're case I'll make an exception to say: please don't bother me here or in my email with those things. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I was just trying to do some networking, not trying to apply via an email. – SD0001 (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Halting problem

Hi David. I wonder if you weren't a little quick to semiprotect halting problem after only two reversions. I'm not a huge defender generally of the privileges of the unregistered, given that it's so easy to register, but this does seem a little out of the usual. --Trovatore (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It was only for three days, but if you think even that is too much I could lift it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fine either way. Not too worried about it. Just struck me as slightly unusual. --Trovatore (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Unit propagation

Could you take a look at these edits to Unit propagation? One of the sources looks at best tangential to the topic and the other is currently inaccessible to me. XOR'easter (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "unit propagation" does not appear in the CVPR paper. It appears to be totally unrelated. The ENDM paper looks like somewhat-relevant primary research, not a good source for basic definitions in this area. Undone. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems typical for the edits I have been investigating today. XOR'easter (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a very random and obscure thing to cite for an idea as widespread as using a blockchain for a digital currency. Also, the conference sounds too obscure for its proceedings to represent a high-quality source, but it's far enough from my field that I wouldn't say so for sure. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You can see the quality of the source by the writing in its first paragraph:

"The cryptocurrency or digital currency is one of the efficient online payment methods. It is significantly different as compared to the classic payment approaches like bank transfer, debit, credit, cheque or cash. This latest technological payment approach has tremendous breakthroughs over other payment methods such as immediate transactions globally, and as we for purchasing a huge range of services and goods. Now with time, it is emerging into the cryptography concepts in which a sequence of bits becomes a digital representation of a monetary value which is also used for the payments of services and goods. The users are always having security concerns although the more secured secure cryptographic algorithms can also be attacked. The "double-spending issue" is a widely known problem in the mentioned concerns [1]."

At least it's clear they're not using an LLM. Anyway, there is nothing in there about blind signatures "now being applied to modern blockchain technologies", the claim it supposedly sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for zapping that. I also noticed Substring index, which appears to be an abandoned stub. Maybe it should be redirected somewhere? XOR'easter (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a topic I know reasonably well. I think in its current state it's a valid set index article, but it could stand improvement. The name "full-text index" seems to be somewhat more common. I don't think we have an existing article that would be better as a redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

why do you undo vertical fractions edits?

when there are vertical fractions edits you undo them to horizontal ones, why?, i know you said it’s something with inline math, but I don’t really understand. Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Both kinds of fractions are valid mathematics formatting, in general, but the horizontal ones with slashes are better for inline formulas in text.

One

 

reason

 

is

 

to

 

avoid

 

bad

 

extra-wide

 

line

 

spacing.

That goes double for exponents because they're often already above the normal line height even if you don't make them double-decker, but also because when you write things like $a^{\frac {b}{c}}$ the denominator drops back down near the original baseline and it becomes confusing to read.

Another reason to use horizontal fractions is that it keeps the text larger and more readable.

One reason to sometimes prefer vertical fractions is that it can avoid parenthesization that might be necessary when horizontal. And vertical often looks better in displayed equations, where height and small text size are much less problematic. But neither of those situations describes your edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

what about the ones in roots? Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, vertical fractions make inline text too tall. Roots make them taller. So vertical fractions in roots in inline text are best avoided. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

They are using ${\frac {22}{7}}$ in Pi instead of 22/7 should i edit it? Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

also there isn’t anything else it’s just “ although fractions such as ${\frac {22}{7}}$

are commonly used to approximate it.” Pinplaybloxorwiki (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A talk page stalker here. It is because that vertical fraction uses the display="inline", which means any big chunk mathematical writing in the line of a paragraph can be reduced to the size of letters normally in the paragraph. Moreover, I think you should let it be, since the article Pi is approximately ${\textstyle {\frac {22}{7}}}$ is the explanation for beginners, especially for those who study in the elementary school, starting to understand the definition of pi as a constant of the ratio of circumference and radius of a circle at the beginning, before they move to the advanced level.

You are thinking that all of the vertical fractions in the inline text should be written horizontally. To me, it is just for the case of when the fractions are the exponentiations. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Blocking the entry of information and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. ISTCC (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this was removed as "clearly premature": Special:Diff/1262145589. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I was just coming here to tell you that... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! For more context see Talk:Collatz conjecture#I am proposing a major edit to this page. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Make a suggestion

Ok. Suggest a procedure/method that I have not already tried where you could possibly change your opinion about TMA. I believe there are no facts/data/information that you could receive which would change your mind. I thought arbitration was the fairest method to decide the issue. I present my facts, you present your facts, and an unbiased, neutral person makes a final decision. If you cannot foresee anything short of arbitration in deciding this issue, then eventually we windup at arbitration in the future. I will not stop pursuing this issue until there is a final, definitive decision from an unbiased, neutral person. ISTCC (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. You had several opinions about TMA in the talk page discussion. There is no world in which this is sufficient sourcing for claims about the Collatz conjecture. In addition to the concerns about it being a predatory journal, which it appears to be, WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. That is, if you or someone else had actually solved the Collatz conjecture, or even made significant progress on it, then Quanta Magazine, the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, and other similar publications would cover the work. Work on getting that coverage, then come back to Wikipedia. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have warned ISTCC that any further attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise their "proof" is likely to lead to being blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Allais

Thanks for the comments on Lucy Allais’s entry. I’ve spent more time on her seminal book about Kant. Your thoughts are very welcome. Best Derek J Moore (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You should base all such content on reliable sources, not written by Allais herself, as required by our policy on articles about living people. For a description of material from a book, published reviews of the book would be suitable. Go by what those reviews say, not what you think of the book. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks David. All the comments have been taken from reviewers of the work or from people who are trying to make Kant more clear to the lay reader like myself. Lucy Allais has not offered any guidance or direction in my writing. Derek J Moore (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

They need to be footnoted to individual reviews, and written in a way that attributes each opinion to a reviewer rather than making it sound like the opinion of Wikipedia. I see your edits have been reverted by another editor because you did not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)