User talk:David Eppstein/2013a

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exponential time hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double exponential (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Binary number

Dear David, I have just moved Binary numeral system to Binary number per the RM discussion on the talk page. Now it's up to you and your fellow participants to tweak the wording in the lead appropriately. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CoDi see also links

Hey there. I saw that you were also removing the spammy links to that new article. Do you think there are any pages that should keep that beside the main CA page? There are about half a dozen left in neural network type articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to leave the neural network ones and the main CA article one. I just didn't think it had any relevance to other specific CA rules and to traffic models. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree. Those last few work for me then. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Double wedge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Hassan connection to NH Governor

Hi Mr. Eppstein, I put a note in the Thomas Hassan Talk page but I thought I'd put it here too...

Mr. Hassan lives with his wife, the governor of NH. She was inaugurated on 3 Jan 13. This is not a trivial connection. I believe that she should be named and linked in this article.

Thoughts?

Best,

Friedlad (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I see, you edited the info box on the right side of the page. Is it non-standard to repeat this in the body text of the article? Obviously I missed the connection and (I guess obviously) feel that it is an important fact here that the governor of NH lives on the PEA campus with their family...

Friedlad (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All the versions of Thomas Hassan that I have seen or edited have had his wife's name and office in the first sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Triangular_number#An_elegant_property

I have posted a proof at the talk page, in which you commented and might be interested as well, which I think we should add it in the article as we have a proof which is [you can verify it] correct. 117.227.200.134 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering

The article Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Contrary to what article claims, not included in Science Citation Index (see Thomson Reuters Master Journal List). PubMed indexing trivial (via PubMed Central as an OA journal). Not included in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree this should not have a full article and have turned it back into a redirect. Unfortunately a prod is inappropriate as it was already prodded once before in 2010. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI?

Hi David. I've been working on cellular automaton extensively, and noticed yesterday a bit of new text was added by User:Wli625. Based on their contributions, it's pretty obvious this is Wentian Li. Pretty much every single edit made by this account is adding references to papers written by Wentian Li. There was a lot of that done back in 2008, then a multi-year break, then a recent burst of new activity, including the creation of an article for Wentian Li. Is this kind of thing okay? I'm still a little hazy on COI issues, and I'm also not sure the article passes WP:GNG. Any advice or suggestions you have would be appreciated. I'll watchlist this talk page. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not ok to create an article on yourself. As for adding one's own research contributions to articles: I've done it myself (most recently in 1-planar graph), but I think the rule is that if any other editor reasonably disagrees with the addition then it should be removed (i.e. the person with the conflict of interest has an automatically weaker position in any edit dispute). I'll take a look at these particular additions and see whether something needs to be done in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Li appears to pass multiple criteria of WP:PROF so I am reluctant to try to get the article on him deleted despite its apparent COI origin. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I suppose there's a bit of a difference between adding links to your online web store versus your online research, although I could see it as an indirect way to promote yourself for eventual financial gain, say, in the form of research grants.—Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Li and I created/edited a few pages recently because I just became an editor

of a journal and found that wiki didn't have any information on the journal, even though it is published by a major publisher (Elsevier). That was why i added a page for the journal. Then I thought it would be good to add a page for myself because if potential authors know my background, they might be more comfortably submitting their papers to this journal. I wasn't thinking about promotion, only thinking about making information available. In this process, I became curious about what wiki pages say about topics which I wrote papers on. And found that some results which I think interesting are not included. I have added some materials and refer to my own publications. Is that COI? But who knows more about a topic than the authors themselves? We don't have unlimited time in our hand, and we only add pieces of information that we are most familiar with. Collectively, these pieces of information would make a wiki page more comprehensive. Again, it is not for promotion purpose. That's my opinion and I would like to hear other's comments. The other thought on "creating a page on oneself": is it OK for the person's colleague to create that page? What about his/her friends? students? children? relatives? ... (User:Wli625).

Preferably, none of the above: see WP:AUTOBIO. Your expertise is certainly welcome here but it would carry less of an appearance of COI and self-promotion if a larger fraction of your edits were not the addition of references to your own papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(*on large fraction of my edits being reference to my own papers) It is mainly a time issue.

If I had a lot of time, I could edit other pages. For my own work, I could immediately see what's missing from a wiki page and what could be improved. Maybe what I will do in the future is to try to get 50% fraction: whenever I edit one page related to my work, I would try to edit another page unrelated. (*on creating a page on oneself) It would be interesting to have some statistics on the relationship between the writer(s) who created/edited a person's page and that person, stratified by fields, age, etc. Denote k=0 as self, k=1 as anyone who knew/met/related/being friend/co-authored/.. that person, k=2 is friend-of-friend... etc. Mostly k<=6 (six degrees of separation). I would guess such a distribution could peak at k=1. I would also want to see a definition of COI based on k. (*one rule_110) That page is mainly from a computer science's perspective. I thought a perspective from the dynamical systems is missing. So when I get a chance, I will again bring in some sentences from a dynamical systems' point of view, after I survey the literature more carefully (instead of just quoting my paper only). (User:Wli625)

Re rule 110: yes, please do try to make the article more balanced. I think that one was mostly the work of others but I know in my own editing on CA articles I'm likely to overemphasize the computer science perspective, for obvious reasons. As for splitting your editing between your own work and others': yes, that seems appropriate. It is only natural that you edit on the subjects where you have the most expertise, but I'm sure your work has led you to know some topics well that you haven't yet published in yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

IDEF

Hi David, could you comment on this discussion. It seems a new user has created a lot of work altering those article titles without any previous discussion etc. -- Mdd (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Light Painting

I'm a international known Light Artist with clients like Canon, Coldplay, Nike, Diesel, Japan Tobacco. i'm a athour and teacher about light art. please take a look in goolge before you edit me again.

cheers janleonardo

You also have all the appearance of a self-promoting spammer. Please see WP:COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

no: the information in the text part "Techniques" wasn't right! FIRST: I'm the founder and the creator of the Light Art technique: LAPP You can reading this all over in the net. i give information's for peaple they are interested in Light Art. JanLeonardo (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Please see WP:3RRNB. Deltahedron (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct use of the term "linear"

For one thing, it's what one tries to construct when one does linear regression. See for instance Linear predictor function, which has a link to the wrong kind of linear function in its lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, David, you're wrong. You're making the usual clumsy mistake of thinking that the reason why linear regression is called linear is that one is fitting a line. But if you fit a parabola by least squares, that's still linear regression. And the reason for calling it that makes sense. Nonlinear regression is something else. The article on linear predictor functions has the right link. You're neglecting the fact that a column whose every entry is the number 1 may be one of the predictors, so you're taking a linear combination of that and the others. See this question and its answers. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You walked obliviously into a standard trap in which freshmen get caught. Linear regression is linear regardless of whether one is fitting a line or any of many sorts of curve. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahmes

Hello David. I just came across your comment on the Ahmes talk page and though written two years ago I think there is something left to say. While in agreement with much of what you say, it seems to me that there is still room for poor Ahmes. First of all, because his is probably one of the best-known Ancient Egyptian names, if only because the Rhind papyrus was for so long called the Ahmes papyrus or calculation book etc. Secondly, because a redirect to Rhind papyrus lands the reader on a page in which Ahmes is completely submerged and so Milo Gardner-ized that the reader will learn nothing useful. Indeed the whole Rhind papyrus page is in rather bad shape. As for what should be put on the Ahmes page (and what is this "more accurately Ahmose" thing? Since when does a late Greek transcription take precedence over a form much closer to the actual Jˁḥ-ms, conventionally vocalized Yahmes by modern Egyptologists?) there are two things I think that one can say: 1° that he copied an older mathematical problem collection and 2° that he was a professional scribe. (We also have his signature at the end of the colophone). Given the bad state of the Rhind papyrus page and the small and, I find, not very informative section on Egyptian scribes in the scribe article, I think one migh do something useful under Ahmes' name.--NfrHtp (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "more accurately" part may be leftover cruft from Milo Gardner (an enthusiastic amateur Egyptologist who has contributed here, and made a mess of several articles). If you think there is more to say on the article, and can find the appropriate references to back it up, please do go ahead and improve it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I unfortunately have come across Milo Gardner's work elsewhere and seen the damage done. My idea was to see if one couldn't say a few words about the 2 allied topics, Rhind papyrus and Egyptian scribe, on the Ahmes page, since what we know about him is restricted to what he himself says in the colophone (one sentence long and which might be put here as well), i.e., his name - Jˁḥ-ms, profession - scribe, and the fact that he copied the text from an older original. This would, say, double the current length (before stripping off the Gardner excrescences).--NfrHtp (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DAGs etc.

Thanks for your comments as I pondered the wiki's wording of the longest-path solution to transitive reduction of DAGs. The original question that brought me here was (as vaguely stated here as it is in my mind), "does an electrical circuit interpretation of the Hasse diagram of a poset induce a nice linearisation?". Do you happen to know of any results on posets realised as electrical circuits? My Googling came up short and, as I just crossed paths with an expert, well ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.199.72 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not offhand, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalin Barboianu

You might want to refactor your last !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalin Barboianu as you had previously provided an opinion of "delete" in the same discussion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Graph theory articles

Hi David,

In case you have missed it, I have made suggestions and asked questions on these pages : Talk:Möbius ladder‎ (one item) and Talk:Tournament (graph theory)‎ (five items).

If it was intentional not to answer, please just ignore this message.

Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Rado graph

David,

I did not "interpolate" a "set-theoretic definition" just for the fun of it. But as you must know, some people use the definition that a graph can have loops (from a vertex to itself) or parallel edges (multiple edges between the same two vertices) or both.

To be unambiguous I used precisely the definition of Rado graph that Rado uses in his paper introducing it.

Your wording of "(in the case x < y)" . . . "(in the case y < x)" is both superfluous and downright confusing, since for any edge xy in Rado's terms, one must have x <> y and hence WLOG x < y is sufficient to define the graph. Even if you insist on using your redundant definition, it could be worded much more clearly.

And I can't for the life of me imagine any justification for your removing my additional example of what the neighbors are of vertex 2. Unless you were just unhappy that anyone could conceive of altering your words.Daqu (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that the desire to eliminate all possible ambiguities is not helpful to the cause of making our articles readable. This is one of those times. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one trying to eliminate all possible ambiguities — or whatever your twisted motivation may be — by giving a two-case definition of the Rado graph when only a single case is needed. I simply used the identical definition to what's in Rado's paper. And that includes stating his definition of graph without which the properties of the Rado graph cannot be understood.

And you are totally silent on why you deleted my example of the neighbors of vertex 2.

It appears that as long as you wrote it, it's OK — and otherwise, not — clarity be damned. Daqu (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why you think you need to define what a graph is in general, when the vertices and edges of this graph are already clearly defined. But I did just reword it to avoid two cases by assuming wlog x < y as you suggest. As for the rest of your rhetoric, please see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilson

I commend the spirit and a lot of the ingredients of this set of edits, but some of it worries me.

I hadn't heard of the photographer till yesterday or the day before, but it seems that she worked for a long time with/for Avedon, and then she immersed herself in one project after another (possibly with some overlaps). But now the article lacks any narrative at all -- there's book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4, and then exhibition after exhibition -- and little chance of one being developed by somebody who's luckier than me and has more source materials, unless that editor undoes quite a bit of your recent work.

Compare the article on Homer Sykes, who's also done one thing after another, these being accompanied by books: the article presents a narrative that sometimes mentions the books and exhibitions, but the nitty-gritty about the latter is relegated to lists that come below. This is a commoner way to construct the bios of roughly comparable photographers, and I think it's a better one -- which isn't to say that it's always the best (or that the article on Sykes is much good). -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that telling stories is better for longer biographies. In this case I didn't think we really had the material for it, though — we have some reviews of her output, but we don't have a lot of reliable third-party sources describing what she went through to get that output. If you can find them, please go ahead and put the article into more of a prose format and less of a bare-bones list, but it needs to avoid the uninformative puffery and unsourced assertions of the pre-AfD version of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sources and time permitting, I'll try. (Don't hold your breath.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inverse (program)

Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability. The tag's still there 5 years later; you could take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD, or make it a redirect, or remove the tag if you are no longer concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ostomachion

Slashme, in August, 2012, deleted a passage from Ostomachion on the grounds that it missed the point, but did not indicate what the point missed might be. It is not clear, from his qualifications and expertise, whether Slashme has any special expertise in enumerative combinatorics. On the other hand, David Eppsten, who has also engaged recently in editing this entry, certainly does. So, I should like to remind both Users of the passage in question in seeking their consent to restoring the passage, perhaps with some further comment:

So, there are at least four different answers that we might give just considering Suter's proposal. Clearly, to count, you have to know what counts. When, as here, the number of outcomes is so sensitive to the assumptions made, it helps to state them explicitly. Put another way, combinatorics can help sharpen our awareness of tacit assumptions. If, say, answers like 4 or 64 are unacceptable for some reason, we have to re-examine our presumptions, possibly questioning whether Suter's pieces can be turned over in reforming their square. As emerges below, there is also some objection to Suter's proposal which would render this combinatorial discussion of the Suter board academic.

As it seems to me, the point the writer intends is that a problem in enumerative combinatorics has to be well-posed in order for it to be possible to answer it and that wide variation in potential answers is an indication that the problem has not been well posed. What is missing here is the further observation that Netz, in the referenced book with Noel, just jumps into his conjecture that Archimedes was doing high-level enumerative combinatorics leading to a large number, which is then confirmed by producing a suitable large number, but without any discussion of the underlying assumptions need to produce that large number. Two possible reasons for this reticence occur to me: (i) the writer wished to avoid being unduly adversarial; and (ii) the writer considered Netz' adoption of the (flawed) Suter Board, again without discussion why this Board is privileged over that emerging from the Archimedes Codex, a more serious obstacle.

So, I propose for your consideration and, as I hope, approval restoration of the deleted passage, with the further observation of how it relates to Netz' presentation in his book with Noel.

Now, also missing in the entry is discussion of Netz more scholarly discussion, jointly with Fabio Acerbi and N. G. Wilson, that came out in SCIAMVS in 2004:

• Towards a reconstruction of Archimedes' Stomachion, SCIAMVS, 5 (2004), 67-97.

The account here is decidely lower key than the earlier book and, if anything, supports the thrust of the Wiki entry in faulting the account in the book. In the first place, we see, not the Suter Board, but the outlines of a board that is two squares side by side, just as Heiberg had suggested (although in the book, Netz takes Heiberg to task for neglecting figures). Secondly, following the discussion in footnotes referring to Suter, the article recognises Suter's own admission of the provisional nature of his reconstruction (but not the typo in fn 6, where Suter has AD = DB, where presumably AD = AB is intended, not Suter's later conncession that, in the unpointed Arabic of his text, twice and equals are easily confused, not that Suter recognizes that this opens the possibility that the sides might be related as AD = 2AB, as seen in the Archimedes Codex). Thirdly, the authors have studied Hedberg and Suter sufficiently thoroughly to be able to say where Hedberg diverges from Suter. Fourthly, the authors even have reference to the note on Lucretius in 1956 by H. J. Rose from which they could have been led, by equally close reading, to Oldham's letter to Nature in 1926, although, particularly for a senior classicist, such as N. G. Wilson, Rose's standard Handbook of 1934, would be the more obvious source of acquaintance with Oldham's letter. For further reference here, we can consult Suter's article of 1899:

• Der Lochulus Archimedius ....

Comparison of book and paper does invite question about Netz' approach to scholarship? As it happens, an extended answer has been given by Netz' co-author, Fabio Acerbi, whose own work delving into Ancient Greek enumerative combinatorics seems, by Netz' own account, to have been an inspiration for Netz to emulate and equal.

• Archimedes and the Angel: Phantom Paths from Problems to Equations, Aestimatio, 2 (2005), 169--226; see esp. 178--179.

The pointis not even whether Netz' approach should be labeled as history of mathematics, or whether, more likely, he is inventing a new genre ... Netz' book simply raises problems of methods: ...

Netz' earlier showmanship in publicizing his conjecture on Archimedes' Stomachion, namely that it was an exercise in high-level enumerative combinatorics, was sprung on a less suspecting audience.

So, with all due respect to your expertise and judgement, I should also like to add these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.100 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to find no rejoinder, as I observe that you are usually only to keen to police original research. The difficulty with the entry Ostomachion as far as it has concerned the referenced book by Netz and Noel is that it certainly is a published source, so discussion of it might indeed read like commentary. Justaposing Netz' scholarly paper with Acerbi and Wilson would seem to help overcome the objection of OR, still flagged up in the entry.

Basically the article as it stands now is a complete mess of original research that needs burning to the ground and rebuilding from scratch. But the deleted passage is significantly worse than what's there already, primarily in being heavily editorial (promoting an opinion, exhorting people to think in a certain way about the problem) rather than factual. And my contributions towards editing this article have been extremely minor, so I don't feel that I have a stake in fixing it; I do care about our mathematics articles in general, but this one is only one of a huge number of mathematics articles with problems, many of which I have a greater concern for than this one, and far too many for me to deal with on my own. So: I don't appreciate being told what to do, I agree that this article is a problem, I don't agree that you are helping fix the problem, I don't agree that this is the most urgent problem currently calling for my attention, and I may or may not get to this sometime in the future when I feel like it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Aliquot

I noticed that you reverted my changes to Aliquot yet we have no article which explains what an aliquot is. The links within the lines of the disambig version simply point to vaguely related articles such as Chemistry which helps not one whit if you happen to be a chemistry student looking to find what and aliquot part actually is. Currently it is most unsatisfactory. If you don't like my version, what do you suggest?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Which kind of aliquot do you want to have an article on? You should write a domain-specific article on that one. E.g. create aliquot part (chemistry), with sourcing to chemistry textbooks, defining aliquot parts in that context and explaining how to create them and what they're used for. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary: disambiguation pages are different, but actual articles need to be on a single topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Graph-tool article

You had proposed the deletion of the Graph-tool article. Since then the article has been updated to include several academic references, as mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graph-tool. Would you care to address this and review your position? executive_override (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'd rather let the AfD play out and see what other editors think of the improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, things seem to be lingering there. Since you proposed the deletion in the first place, I think it would be useful to know what you think of the modifications. executive_override (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Graph power

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Phillip lloyd Powell

No delete log for furniture designer Phillip Lloyd Powell delete 5 June 2008 By Dvid Eppstein. Reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.166.171 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason given in the delete log that I see for that article is "db-nn", i.e. WP:CSD#A7. It was tagged as non-notable by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs), The entire text of the article was "Philip Lloyd Powell was a American furniture designer, sculptor, and artist, who is famous for his contributions to the American furniture design." There were no sources to make this claim credible. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:La Reyne le veult DYK

I've responded to your concerns on the La Reyne le veult DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And found a ref. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And changed the wording. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A matter which took me only four seconds to fix (serious)

Re: Armless freak

Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Independent review needed

Dear David_Eppstein, if you get a chance, can you please independently take a look at the deletion of Mediox [[1]]. I will modify the article in any way possible just to preserve the invention of the multimedia fast food tray. MDEngineer (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Oops. sincere apologies for adding the message to the top of the list. MDEngineer (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ordered Bell number

The DYK project (nominate) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Allen Whitworth

Harrias ^talk 16:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Paging Dr. Eppstein

Is it just me, or are the inmates on the verge of taking over the asylum? [2] Honestly, where did all these handwringing naysayers come from? EEng (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

context

See this edit. I've met people who don't recognize that word at all. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about writing it that way. However some editors (not me) would insist on reversing that edit, claiming that it's redundant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hypercube page edits, hypercube elements

Hello David,

I have recently made a large amount of additions to the Hypercube Wikipedia page, and I have noticed that you have deleted the vast majority of them. Most of what I have posted are original findings, which you have dismissed as 'nonstandard terminology' and deleted. What would be the best way for me to add my original findings to Wikipedia? I am currently in the process of submitting my findings to the appropriate University of Arizona mathematics database to have my findings confirmed/verified.

Until my findings are published, I will undo all of the edits that I have made regarding my original findings. However, I am leaving my changes under the Construction subsection of the article because integration is the mathematically correct term to describe what is happening, as opposed to "moving".

Anion24 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Anion24 to open a discussion at the article talk page on the use of the term integration in this context, which seems completely non-standard. Deltahedron (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

To Anion24: please stop trying to restore your reverted edits, and discuss them on the article talk page instead. This appears to be original research to me. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your "original findings". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Klein graph

I have recently created an article Klein graph – and then realised that some sources, including Wolfram MathWorld, use the term "Klein graph" for the dual graph of the one I have written about, while other sources like this one use it the same way as I do. My attempts to use Google to check which "Klein graph" (and worse, the related "Klein map") is more standard are difficult for me, as some of its hits are to stuff I have created myself. So I would appreciate your advice. Should one article cover both the {7,3} and the {3,7} map? or should they have different articles, and if so what should these be called? Maproom (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for the 3-regular graph, just because we have much better coverage in general of that kind of graph (see cubic graph and Foster census). But if there's a preponderance of sources that go the other way, then that's the way you should go. As for the Klein map, doesn't the Klein quartic article cover that well enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to hear about this new article. If you don't mind, I'll translate it to French.

I have adopted the following layout on the French Wikipedia:

• fr:Graphe de Klein = disambiguation page
• fr:24-graphe de Klein for the 7-regular one ; we already had an article for this one
• fr:56-graphe de Klein for the 3-regular one

This layout, based on the number of vertices, matches the conventions on the French Wikipedia, but might not work out well here. I don't know. --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(conversation continued on Maproom's discussion page to avoir cluttering here) --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Circular layout

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)