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.)

Your GA nomination of Bucket queue

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bucket queue 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 Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Thanks! I will be more offline than usual through this time Saturday, so don't be surprised if I am not very responsive until then, but I should have more time again after that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viète's formula

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Viète's formula 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 Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viète's formula

The article Viète's formula 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:Viète's formula for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Thanks for the review! I'm still traveling today and tomorrow but I should have time to take a closer look after that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

​ No worries. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pick's theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pick's theorem 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 Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pick's theorem

The article Pick's theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pick's theorem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Magic square and related oddities

Hey, while perusing the orphaned files category, I came across a number of, er, interesting files uploaded by Knecht03. It looks like you reverted many of his edits at associative magic square as OR/cruft/not encyclopedic back in 2019 - not sure if it rings a bell. In any case, much of his content remains at most-perfect magic square, magic constant, and water retention on mathematical surfaces, and I thought I should check if it should also be removed. Also, should his image uploads also be deleted as unencyclopedic/OR, or are they worth porting to Commons on the off chance someone will want them? I can take care of the tag spree if so, but I figured I should check with someone who might actually know first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the one who posted enormous pictures of dolphins swimming on sand dunes in mathematics articles, and enormous multicolored magic squares with the coloring spelling out the words "help me" (or maybe not that, exactly, but something like that), right? Magic constant doesn't look too bad, but the other two appear overrun with original research and need to be taken to with a machete. I don't think what happens to the images is as important; commons has lots of junk already, a little more won't make a difference, but if it's easier to delete then that's ok too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, it was a sea turtle, not a dolphin. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted most-perfect magic square to a pre-Knecht version that looked okay, and I stripped out most of what was added to water retention on mathematical surfaces. I'll mark the images for deletion as well - no sense cluttering Commons more than it already is. Can you take a quick peek at the articles and make sure they look ok to you? Thanks for your help. (PS: sea turtles. Why.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Most-perfect magic square now looks more or less typical for a magic square article. Which is not to say that it's deep or well-sourced, but at least not seriously problematic. However, I'm not convinced that any of water retention on mathematical surfaces is notable. I mean, percolation theory is certainly notable and significant, as is the algorithmic demarcation of watersheds on elevation models, but all of the content of the actual article seems to be a fringe variation on those topics, related to the fringe topic of magic squares, with no sense of the actual history of the topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna be completely honest with you - I couldn't tell the difference between a notable math topic and a fringe-fuelled math rant for love nor money, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euclid–Euler theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Euclid–Euler theorem 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 Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Alan Cobham (mathematician)

Hi, regards Alan Cobham (mathematician), unlike AfD where WP:BEFORE is essential, at AfC it is deemed the responsibility of the submitter (or anyone else) to show notability. A single blog did not show notability - You may have noticed the "subject obviously passes WP:PROF" because it is your area, but at AfC we have to review every topic. As the decline notice says, it just didn't yet show notability not that the subject was not notable. With 200+ submissions a day and few reviewers if we WP:BEFOREd every draft we though could be notable the backlog would be even more than 5 months which is already ridiculous and those not lucky enough to have submission noticed by someone like yourself with expertise would be waiting more than a year. As I see from your user page your focused on mathematics articles you may like to look at the pending submissions in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/STEM/Mathematics or any other subject in Wikipedia:AfC sorting you like to look at. Obviously any editor is welcome to just move an article from draft to main-space that the believe is notable, but if you'd like to put your expertise to use in getting worthy articles from AfC submission please do consider signing up an Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and using WP:AFCH to accept articles (includes basic cleanup, logging, and thanking submitter) - we really appreciate any reviewers with expertise in key areas even if they only review the odd article. If interested we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject so you can log your areas of expertise and interest. Although I disagree it was obviously notable based on just a blog I do very much appreciate you noting it, improving it and getting it main-spaced. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You are doubling down on your mistake by continuing to use the wrong notability standard. The notability standard for this sort of article is WP:PROF. It is based on accomplishment, not sourcing. The fact that the source used was a blog had nothing to do with the subject's notability so your continuing to harp on that shows that you are still not getting it. The accomplishment in this case was obvious even in the one-line stub that you declined, linking to two notable concepts named after the subject. It was a bad decline. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euclid–Euler theorem

The article Euclid–Euler theorem 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:Euclid–Euler theorem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viète's formula

The article Viète's formula you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viète's formula for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euclid–Euler theorem

The article Euclid–Euler theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Euclid–Euler theorem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Didi Contractor

On 7 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Didi Contractor, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Baruch Schieber

Hi David, thanks for the fast reply on the orphan tag. I have a question about the change you made for the article: "search engine results are not reliable sources". If Google scholar and Google patents are not considered relaible sources, can you recommend alternative (preferably free) sources for academic publication and patents?--Adig-pt (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally I don't put publication and citation counts into biographical articles. The citation counts in particular change too much over time and depending on which database one uses. Better just to list a small number of major results (but with sources independent of the subject of the article for the significance of these results). For sourcing requirements on Wikipedia biographies, see WP:RS and WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bucket queue

The article Bucket queue you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bucket queue for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for providing valuable advice to the people completing my task over at the Reward Board! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cairo pentagonal tiling

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cairo pentagonal 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Halin graph

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Halin graph 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Halin graph

The article Halin graph 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:Halin graph for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cairo pentagonal tiling

The article Cairo pentagonal 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:Cairo pentagonal tiling for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cairo pentagonal tiling

The article Cairo pentagonal tiling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cairo pentagonal tiling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Halin graph

The article Halin graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Halin graph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Viète's formula

On 23 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Viète's formula, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1593, French amateur mathematician François Viète found the first formula in European mathematics to represent an infinite process, a product of square roots that he used to compute π? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Viète's formula. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Viète's formula), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Next time just ask

A) See also items do not need to be directly related. See MOS B) The article discusses vertices and splits. So the proposed See also item is in fact related even if written as mathematics rather than computer graphics. The one field is a subset of the other C) Revert is not a polite way to ask a question. I have a user page for that Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(context is Special:Diff/1035194329). @Elinruby: It wasn't really intended as a question, at least not directly. It was intended as a non-insulting way of saying that I think Split (graph theory) is totally irrelevant to Popping (computer graphics), and that you were wrong to add it as a see-also link. But also as a way of asking you to justify it more clearly, if you disagree. Now that you have provided your reasoning here, I am only more strongly convinced that you were wrong. The popping article uses "vertex splits" to mean the addition of a Vertex (computer graphics) to a graphics model. This is totally not the same as the meanings of these words in Split (graph theory) where a Vertex (graph theory) has a different meaning (one of several different meanings; see Vertex (disambiguation)) and a split is defined as a subdivision of the vertices into two sets connected by a complete bipartite graph (not at all the same thing as adding more vertices). That is, the most similar thing about these articles is the wording, not the actual meaning. But Wikipedia in general is about meaning, not wording; see WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am not sure you are right but I am entertaining the possibility that you know more than I. I suppose it is possible, but mathematically, a vertex is a vertex regardless of where it is found, no? I have not reverted you in turn, just in case, but I currently believe you are mistaken. I already went back to a current news article though, so I will get back to you on this. Probably with more questions, if you are saying you are a subject matter expert. Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No. A vertex in a graph is an element without any additional structure. A vertex of a polyhedron is a point in a space, with coordinates. A vertex in a graphical model is a point with additional properties such as a surface normal or color. A vertex of a curve is a point where curvature is extreme. A vertex of a lens is the crossing of its centerline with its surface. A vertex of a person is the top of the head. You might just as well have linked Cranial suture because it is where the vertex of your skull splits. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Pick's theorem

On 25 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pick's theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for polygons with integer coordinates, the area can be computed from the numbers of integer points inside and on the boundary of the polygon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pick's theorem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pick's theorem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Big O notation

Ask yourself, did your repeated pressing of revert, and doing nothing else help here? Please do not contact me further. 89.107.6.68 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hopcroft's Algorithm

Hi David. I see that you've been active on the DFA minimization article. I've just added a question on the Talk page there: perhaps I have spotted a bug (but perhaps I'm missing something obvious). You might be interested. Thanks for your time. PhS (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)