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.

DYK for Lixia Zhang

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Martha E. Sloan

Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikinic rescheduled

5th Annual Wiknic rescheduled to Saturday, July 25, 2015, ~9:30am-4pm

Due to a conflict with the Redondo Loves Wikipedia edit-a-thon, the fifth annual Los Angeles Wiknic has been rescheduled. As before, the location will be at Pan-Pacific Park (map) and will be held on Saturday, July 25, 2015 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible! I hope to see you there! —howcheng {chat} - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Pappus Chain

Actually , I saw this thing on Wolfram Alpha and so changed it. Also if we see carefully then the radius of n' th circle according to this formula depende merely on the ratio of AC/AB.I derived it using Circle Inversion and got an additional term of AB.So the given formula for radius of n'th circle has to be multiplied by AB to get the exact radius.Sachinsahoo11 (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

But why do you think the formula should be expressed using an equivalence sign (triple bar) rather than an equal sign? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually ,I am also not too clear about that, but I saw it on Wolfram Alpha and thought that it must be having some relevance in making the formula correct. As , if there is an equal sign then the formula surely needs to be modified and AB needs to be multiplied in radius of n'th circle to make it correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinsahoo11 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There does need to be some assumption about scale (probably that the base of the arbelos is a unit-length line segment) to make those formulas correct. But using a congruence sign instead of an equals sign is unrelated to that. And if you are not too clear about a mathematical concept, you probably should find a different article to edit, since clarity is very important in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Peter H Millard

As you seem to be familiar with academic notability, maybe you can help me with this article; with the one source dead but recoverable at archive.org, I found some sources here, here, here (brief mention from a list) and here (several links). Can the article be improved with these sources? Aside from this, I found nothing else. @DGG: I know you're also interested with academics so maybe you can comment. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

At first glance he looks above threshold for notability, with multiple 100+-citation papers, FRCP, and past presidency of the British Geriatrics Society. (I'm dubious that the related article Nosokinetics is notable, though.) I'll see what I can find in the way of better sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I never searched for Noskokinetics until this moment and there wasn't much here and here (best results I found, with nothing at News, thefreelibrary and Scholar). SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

none of that matters. Notability by WP:PROf is based on being an authority in one's subject, and for scientists this is usually shown by citations to published peer-reviewed articles. And the presidency of a major academic society is by itself a sufficient criterion. Remember , WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG--if it is satisfied, it proves notability. Of course, it helps to add additional reliably sourced material when available. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can also help George Hillocks, Jr. which could use improvement; I tried searching and found the one best source I could find. Overall, my searches didn't find much aside from Highbeam, Thefreelibrary, Browser (various links) and Scholar. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sphere

David, I invite you to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Sphere#Lead. Thanks. Loraof (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Gregory John Boyle

Hi David, you and others argued for "Keep" at the recent AFD on Gregory John Boyle, based on availability of suitable sources. Would you please now identify some so that the article can be fixed? Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

finger blaster

i'm sorry but there has been no changing of IP address, my friend that went to the same school as me as a child simply told me that wikipedia was not allowing him to add finger blaster as a suitable name for this so called "cootie catcher", just because google shows something different when you type it in doesn't mean it's not a word in common usage. if this requirement is good enough for scrabble then it should be good enough for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.77 (talk • contribs)

I am definitely interested in having this material added, if true. But what you need, in order to add this material to the paper fortune teller article, is a published source saying this name is in use. You see the footnotes after the other names at the start of the article, pointing to books that describe each name? If you can find a similar book (or magazine or newspaper article) source for the "finger blaster" name, then it can be added to the article. I tried searching myself but was unable to find anything relevant. It would also be helpful (but not as necessary) for the source to describe what people do with this shape when they call it this name, since I suspect from the name that it is different from the other uses of the shape. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello mr.Eppstein,it has come to my attention that the terminology that we (scottish people) commonly use when naming a 'paper fortune teller' is not recognised for whatever reason,this brings me much sadness as the 'finger blaster' carries with it alot of fond memories from our childhood and everyone here knows it as a 'finger blaster'rather than any of those american slang names which hold no meaning for us.I hope you understand our dismay and can include our scottish terminology thus helping bring our favourite childhood game and name forward into the present day and the future.many thanks.Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.85 (talk • contribs)

See above. It can be included, but only if you find proper sources documenting this usage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Could You checked?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester%27s_theorem#Generalisation

is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.6.86.31 (talk • contribs)

Your IP geolocates to Vietnam. Could you possibly check Hoàng Xuân Sính? Are the Vietnamese-language sources in that article summarized correctly? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Haha, Vietnamese is hard! By the way, there is another Vietnamese mathematician that has no article here (or even at the Vietnamese Wikipedia), but to which there are more sources in English: that is Lê Thị Thanh Nhàn.[1][2] [3] Yolaf.TZ (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giải_thưởng_Kovalevskaya :D :D :D Yolaf.TZ (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Re the Kovalevskaya prize: I think there's quite a bit about it in the Koblitz book that I cite for Hoáng's article. But maybe that's too primary. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Lê: notability is a bit more borderline in that case but I made an article anyway. I think with two major newspapers writing about her it should be good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing of the Wikipedia Page on Rainbow Coloring of Graphs

Hello Mr. Eppstein !

I request you not to delete the editing done on the Wikipedia page of Rainbow coloring as we are trying to improvise the article. And the proofs for the stated theorems would shortly follow in the page along with the illustrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparnna Vemuganti (talk • contribs)

Please don't. You are adding extremely uninteresting material to the article based on dubiously-published sources. At most the material you are adding warrants a single bullet entry in the "Exact rainbow or strong rainbow connection numbers". Your additions are far out of proportion to the importance of the material you are adding and violate WP:UNDUE, part of the core Wikipedia policies. In addition your use of two accounts to edit the article is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppet policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Anti-vandal bot reverting me

Hi, professor David Eppstein. Can you help me if a bot removes my edit again? I think that it's perfectly fine to add a link to that lecture to the external links section even if hosted on YouTube... Yet, I may be wrong... Best wishes! 189.6.201.152 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that link looks ok to me. You may need to create a login instead of editing logged-out to get it to stick. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Rendering math

Please stop adding this irrelevant info about the Android app. I cannot help it is the app is broken; it is not even a browser. I suspect the app doesn't handle other templates as well. That is not a problem of the math template. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is one of the standard ways of viewing Wikipedia. I don't care that you can't fix it; it is a shortcoming of that markup/rendering method just like the Chrome non-support for MathML (which you also can't fix) is a shortcoming of the MathML rendering method. Please stop trying to whitewash the problems with your baby templates. They are useful, but we should disclose their actual problems rather than trying to pretend they're perfect. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The app has a lot more problem that are not specific to the math template; it does not handle any font changes. Yet I see not other page on Wikipedia mentioning that. So why single out this particular template? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Because if you're going to choose among math markup methods you should know what the consequences will be for a large subclass of viewers. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

PS I put in a bug report at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106960 — no idea whether it will have any effect. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see

Dear Professor Dr. David Eppstein,

I am sorry, because in Viet Nam don't one know me, don't one help me anything for my work in geometry. I have never gotten any money from my work in Geometry. Could You give your remark for my contribution in Euclidean Gemetry. Pleasee: http://oaithanhdao.blogspot.com/2014/10/cac-ket-qua-cong-bo-tren-tap-chi-sua.html and link in my blog. That are main my results have published in for late 2014 early 2015

I am thank to You very much.

--117.6.86.37 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jorg Meyer

The article Jorg Meyer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person with no significant coverage, only one actual reliable independent source

While all constructive 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. torri²(^talk/_contribs) 20:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Please justify the basis for de-valuing as 'unconstructive' the addition to the wiki under discussion. Arqueware (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that's kind of a passive-agressive way of expressing your disagreement. Anyway, the issue is stella octangula and your insistence that it is the correct article to introduce unsourced alternative names for the star of David. I disagree, both with the unsourced nature of your changes and in your placement of them in an article that is not actually about the star of David. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Maryam Mirzakhani

I apologize for using the wrong button. I deleted the file on Commons as a copyright violation (copied from the Guardian or from elsewhere) and removed it from the article, but I obviously should not have used rollback.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I eventually figured it out. It's too bad that one was a copyvio; we could use a good image of her. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The easiest would be if someone from Stanford would make a five-minute appointment with her and takes a picture. But I can not do it, I am not even in the US.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rachel Binx

Thank you for the edit to the Binx article. I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia. I agree that a degree alone doesn't make an individual a member of a particular profession. Is there a Wikipedia guideline for what does constitute inclusion in profession categories? I don't want to make a mistake in the future. Ckoerner (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so — it's more a matter for individual judgement (and discussion, especially in borderline cases). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Why you want to delete my post

I am an electrical engineer. So I posted some my geometry results in wiki with reliable source. I think it is normal. But you always want to delete them. So you are selfish, sel-seeking. I despite you.

You see: I did not write my name in Napoleon theorem why you deleted my contribution at there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Napoleon%27s_theorem&type=revision&diff=673408162&oldid=673307074

Why I don't write results by another one? Because my english no good, and enWiki is full, so beyond possibility. I only write (contribution) my result with reliable soure. Why I can not?

Summary: I despite you.

My name: Đào Thanh Oai --14.170.95.14 (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because you spend too much effort here pushing your own name and not enough adding material about other geometry that is not by you? Or maybe because you have already been discovered to have been abusing multiple accounts to continue pushing your name after being asked not to? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Last time, I didn't how wiki, so I wrote my results in enwiki with reliable source. But my account was banrd forever. I think it is not right, I did not intentionally violate. So I create a new account.

My english is not good and enwiki is full, so I don't write another's result. But I think I am an Euclidean geometry's expert. My result appear in AMM, Forum Geometricorum, Crux, ETC, Mathematical Gazette, Global Journal of advanced research on classical and mordern geometries (now have mathScinet index), http://oaithanhdao.blogspot.com/2014/10/cac-ket-qua-cong-bo-tren-tap-chi-sua.html .

Now I know how wiki, so I create a new account to using, but Eightcirclestheorem was barned forever. I write my result in Napoleon theorem but no add my name. Why you delete it?

You can edit, rewrite it to valid, because it be using with reliable source

Please check, if you don't like my result in here you can remove or edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simson_line#Generalizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droz-Farny_line_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester%27s_theorem#Generalisation

If you know Vietnamese language please read my all want to write:

Thưa ngài Eppstein,

1-Trước đây tài khoản của tôi bị cấm do tôi không hiểu về cách hoạt động của wiki, tôi hoàn toàn không cố ý, tôi không biết, tôi phạm lỗi vì tôi không biết. Việc cấm tài khoản của tôi vĩnh viễn tôi cho rằng không hợp tình, hợp lý, tôi không phục điều đó.

2-Tôi không đóng góp được nhiều vì tiếng anh của tôi chưa được tốt, và bên enwiki thật sự là rất hoàn hảo, khó có thể bổ sung thêm đặc biệt với vốn tiếng Anh hạn chế. Trong khi tôi chỉ là nghiệp dư, tôi hiểu sâu về những kết quả của tôi trong hình học. Tất cả các tạp chí AMM, Forum Geometricorum, Crux, ETC, Mathematical Gazette, Global Journal of advanced research on classical and mordern geometries (now have mathScinet index), http://oaithanhdao.blogspot.com/2014/10/cac-ket-qua-cong-bo-tren-tap-chi-sua.html. Hầu hết các bài báo của tôi trên tạp chí do các ông Paul Yiu, ông Kimberling, và nhiều người khác....giúp đỡ tôi viết lại.

3-Tại sao tôi phải sử dụng tài khoản khác (new account?)?? Bởi vì tài khoản Eightcirclestheorem của tôi bị cấm vĩnh viễn (tôi đã cố gắng lấy lại tài khoản đó nhưng không được!!) , tôi muốn làm lại một tài khoản mới, để tham gia từ đầu, tôi đã cố gắng viết không đưa tên tôi vào (no add my name), nhưng vẫn phải đảm bảo trích dẫn (citation with my name in reference) theo đúng quy định, nó đặt ở mục tham khảo.

4-Nếu như nó chưa hợp lý ở chỗ trích dẫn bạn có thể viết lại cho phù hợp sao bạn lại xóa nó?

Đào Thanh Oai --117.6.86.31 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your reversal of changes to Friends of Science Society page -pls explain yourself and who you are

Hello David, I would like to ask why you have twice undone the changes made to the Friends of Science Society's wikipage. The page is inaccurate and outdated. None of it was written by any person known to Friends of Science Society. Thank you, Michelle Stirling Communications Manager Friends of Science Society FriendofScientificMethod (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interests and policy on promotional usernames, both of which you appear to be in violation of. Also see the guideline on fringe theories, which makes very clear that articles on people or groups who promote non-mainstream scientific beliefs must be written from the mainstream point of view, not from the point of view of those people or groups. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, Thank you - I was unaware of these policies. I will propose to the larger user group changes relevant changes to the page and will modify my user name. Friends of Science Society is performing an important task in that scientific inquiry is based upon 'hard-nosed skepticism' and you can read this in the NAS and AAAS codes of Conduct (I will post links for your review later today - just off to a meeting) The recent work of Friends of Science is not represented at all on this page, nor is the fact that one of Friends of Science original supporters and members, Dr. Jim Buckee, is an Oxford-educated astrophysicist and presently has supported the most important radioastronomy project in the world ICAR at the UAW, Australia. In other words, our roots were and are in legitimate, high quality, scientific inquiry, but the present page does not reflect that in anyway. Must dash - I apologize if I sounded so blunt. I'm a babe in the woods here. And though I am the Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society, this is a part-time position on specific projects - what I'm doing on the weekend I don't get paid for (I appreciate this still appears as a COI - just sayin'...) Cheers! Michelle FriendofScientificMethod (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)FriendofScientificMethod, I am a little concerned about your statement "I will propose to the larger user group changes relevant changes to the page". I think it might be important for you realize that Wikipedia articles are not the "property" of the article subject (in this case, FoSM). Indeed, Wikipedia policy regarding conflict of interest reads, "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict...COI editing is strongly discouraged." Further, Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic and not for promoting group-think, the agenda of a group such as yours, or for being an online "resume". Additionally, it's important to know that when one registers an account with Wikipedia, we hope you will stay and edit more than one article, more than one topic of interest. Contribute to the overall project. Otherwise, it could be perceived that account-creation is with the intent of what we refer to as a single purpose account. Such editing can lead to a block, where editing will no longer be possible as the account has been "locked". Of course, we want to assume good faith, and welcome unbiased editing and contributions. It would probably be wise for you to look further into our policies and guidelines before editing or attempting to edit further. Here are a couple of links to start with: WP:GUIDELINES; Wikipedia:List of policies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I understand that wiki pages are no one's property. I understand NOW that as an individual with a real or perceived COI the most useful thing I can do is to offer recommendations for revisions to the larger group, and my reasons for them. The vrous non-conflicted (we hope) editors will decide. People should be aware that individuals who are not openly associated with a group may also have an unspoken agenda. This is how I see much of the material on the Friends of Science Society webpage. I don't find it objective or responsive to the many valuable initiatives Friends of Science has undertaken over the past few years; this is why I attempted to edit the page. These are areas I would offer to the online editorial group.

As for editing other items on line, I am up for that. I comment on various evidence based areas ;I comment on historical topics, areas of my interest include homelessness, food-to-fuel ethanol policies, public health, career development, Stirling engines...the fact that you mention groupthink is amusing as I usually challenge the groupthink in 'anything' - because I ask people to look at the evidence.

However, I do appreciate the several links and suggestions you have provided. Let me check them out. M FriendofScientificMethod (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello David, Thanks for your direction. I have tried to comply and have posted some suggestions on the talk page of Friends of Science under a new conributor name, but also identifying my position with the group and COI. I hope I've done it the right way. Sorry I was taken aback at the reversal. Thanks again. I will be commenting as Mbark2 and am just using this ID to provide you with this heads up. Thanks. FriendofScientificMethod FriendofScientificMethod (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Anamorphic number

Sir, I do believe this is your area. I only believe in two numbers: me and number 2. Best, Drmies (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know enough about the area to recognize original research when I see it, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Crystal ball

Thanks. I will seek to learn the procedures to edit properly, with the style and standards of Wikipedia. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GloryEvans (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks yourself, and welcome to Wikipedia. There can be a lot of those standards here to trip over, but I hope that doesn't prevent you from sticking around and continuing to contribute. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reversions of quadruple and pseudo-tetrades

Hi David, I would first like to thank you for adding the references to the nibble article. However, you removed the term quadruple from the list of terms as well as the link to pseudo-tetrades, and I take issue with your reversion of my reintroduction of them to the article. Per WP:ROWN, reversions should be done only when it's unavoidable, and I think, there were several other options you could have chosen.

If you check the edit history you will find that several of these terms were added and redirects created by me some while ago. All of the terns were challenged for deletion by another editor, who, according to my general observation, appears to be obsessed with declaring any terms he isn't personally familiar with as NEOs, even when he obviously doesn't know much about a topic. Anyway, the outcome of the deletion discussions was Keep, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30#Quadruple (computing), and as you now added references supporting the terms, it should be obvious, that the information I added was correct. It seems, you didn't find sources for quadruple and in fact, it doesn't appear to be a common term any more. Nevertheless, I have seen this term being used in old books in the early 1980s (and I knew this term before I learned about the alternative term nibble). It is also mentioned as synonym to nibble in the German Wikipedia, therefore I am sure, that the term exists (otherwise I wouldn't have added it in the first place). Of course, I am aware of WP:BURDEN, but still we typically don't remove information of this kind unless we seriously doubt it to be correct or it causes harm. What we typically do is to add {{cn}} to make the community of readers aware of something that still needs a source, and this is also what I would have expected in this case. As this isn't made up, sooner or later, someone will run into a source using it. This is more efficient than me spending much time trying to locate those old books again.

Regarding the removal of pseudo-tetrades. We have a redirect tetrade (computing), so we have readers searching for information about tetrade coming to the nibble article. Since the terms tetrade and pseudo-tetrades are closely related, these readers might also look for information about pseudo-tetrades. While this is currently only a redirect to BCD (the German WP, f.e., has a full article on pseudo-tetrades), readers cannot know this in advance, so an explicit link to pseudo-tetrades is needed. This could be added in the text, but so far it isn't. Therefore it is okay to link to it in the See Also section, and there is nothing in WP:SEEALSO stating otherwise. In fact, it is quite common to link from one article to another through several redirects, if they either point to different aspects or sub-topics in the target article or use signficantly different terms pointing to the same information. The rationale is that the reader is searching for information with limited background information and vocabulary and cannot know in advance, how we have organized the information. It is our job to provide the necessary links to assist the reader in finding the information he's is looking for. Therefore, I think, the link should be restored. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Re pseudo-tetrades: I have no problem with integrating a mention of them into the article text itself, but we shouldn't be adding see-also links to topics already linked within the main article text; see WP:SEEALSO for guidance on this.

As for "quadruple", I tried and failed to find a source that this word has been used to mean four bits (by itself, rather than as its usual meaning of "four things" where the context implies that the things are bits). I found sources that used the phrase "quadruple of bits" and I found sources that talked about numbers of bits in quadruple-precision floating point values, but not this supposed meaning. If you can find a source, please add it, but unless such a source can be found I am not going to be convinced that it really has this meaning. Your inference that I think the redirect outcome was correct and that I think the terms you added are valid is true but only when limited to the terms that have now been properly sourced. Yes, tagging with {{cn}} is an alternative that can be used in some cases, particularly for valid information that one knows can be sourced, but in this case my failure to find sources led me to believe that "quadruple" is not a valid synonym and should not be included.

More generally, if you are in part responsible for the sad state of referencing in that article before I started working on it, let me admonish you: please add proper references when you add material to articles. You should not be editing based on personal knowledge of a subject without finding references to back that knowledge up. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you know...

that mathematician Nick Trefethen proposed a new formula for the body mass index?

Would this have a chance to appear on the main page?

GloryEvans (talk) 04:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

More rules. To get into the "Did you know..." section, one of the links in the fact you would like to include needs to be a new article, well referenced and over 1500 characters of article text, because the point of that section is to encourage people to write new articles. Or, the other way to do it is to improve an article to "good article" status. Since neither the Trefethen nor BMI article is new, a good article nomination (after improving one of the articles to meet the criteria) would be the way to go but that can be a slow process. (An article I nominated two months ago still has no reviews, and I think that's not unusual.) —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will find some curiosity about something related to mathematics that doesn't have an article on Wikipedia yet. Mathematics should definitely appear more frequently there. GloryEvans (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I look forward to seeing it. When you do write a new article, the process for getting it into the "Did you know" section can be found at T:TDYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Distinguishing coloring

The edit I made on that page was about the missing(?) letter i, not adding a letter l. Or should there not have been a letter i in the word? If I misunderstood, you have my apologies. Crispulop (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I thought you were changing "labeling" to "labelling". Apparently I should be using my reading glasses more regularly. (Also one of my computers' keyboard has a sticky "i" key, causing the original problem that you fixed and I un-fixed.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect information in Plimpton 322 article Wrong is wrong. You have the wrong table. The right table is in a source that is cited: Trigonommetric Delights. It is on page32. It has the six errors I'm talking about. Which is Plimpton 322's reason for being. If you need help getting the straight story out, I'm available. (336sunny (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC))

Two unrelated things

Thank you for creating the excellent section Dual_graph#Nonplanar_embeddings. This is just what I had hoped to see.

If you think it would help, I could upload the images http://www.weddslist.com/rmdb/images/C1/t1-3p.svg and http://www.weddslist.com/rmdb/images/C1/t1-3.svg to Commons for use in the section. It would probably be best if I first trimmed the graph-edges where they leave the hexagon.

Unrelated to the above: I have been working on Draft:110-vertex Iofinova-Ivanov graph, and would appreciate your comments before I move it into article space. The referencing is a bit thin, but there is an article fr:110-graphe de Iofinova-Ivanov, most of which I have used. Maproom (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to overlay the two images, in different colors, so that we see both the primal and dual graph in a single image? I think that might make it clearer.

Good idea! I'll have a shot at it.

There's a comma splice in your draft, in the "The smallest has 110 vertices" sentence. And "preserve the partitions" is unclear — I assume what is meant is that the automorphisms preserve the 2-coloring of the bipartite graph rather than flipping the colors (and act primitively on each color class). But it is strange to require this as an extra property, since for a semi-symmetric graph the automorphisms automatically preserve the 2-coloring in this way (otherwise they would be fully symmetric). But otherwise it looks pretty good. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. It is the primitive action that is unique to the Iofinova-Ivanov graphs, if my understanding of the sources is correct. The Wolfram source says "Iofinova and Ivanov (1985) showed that there exist exactly five bipartite cubic semisymmetric graphs whose automorphism groups preserves the bipartite parts and acts primitively on each part." I'll do some more checking. I have deleted the bit about "preserve the partitions", which tells us nothing. Maproom (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

David, I am trying to coordinate WP:FAR - there is a maths article there—Equipartition theorem—that I was wondering whether you could look at and decide on its quality and whether there was work to be done (and if so how much) to keep it to FA criteria? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's a bit outside of my expertise. I mean, I can point out obvious issues like paragraphs missing citations but I'm not going to spot subtle inaccuracies in the mathematics. Maybe someone at WT:WPM who knows more about statistical mechanics than I do might be interested? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I guess part of me was thinking whether maths articles needed fewer references if they are filling paras with equations but will ask there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The equations are factual claims and need references like everything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks/I feel smarter now :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sirimal Abeyratne

I'm curious about your comments, that you are "wary of systematic bias here", at the AfD debate for Sirimal Abeyratne. What exactly do you mean? Dan arndt (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That from the US it's easy to find and evaluate US and western-European people, so that's who we tend to include in Wikipedia, and that people from other parts of the world have a higher barrier for inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank for your Kind Comment

Dr. Eppstein, you are playing in a rigged game, and just witnessed (and unwittingly participated in) a coup de tat for ignorance, one that is emblematic of why the number of contributing editors to wiki continues to decline: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/

Some background is here: http://shake-speares-bible.com/2011/11/12/open-letter-to-wikipedias-sue-gardner-following-a-small-no-actually-tiny-donation/

Here is why your co-founder left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger

You will read about Mr. Reedy's antics in the news soon enough. Professor Waugaman may not pass notability in your narrow inquiry into the citations to his numerous articles in Psychiatry Psychoanalytical Inquiry, and many other highly regarded psychoanalytic journals. He is more notable for the reasons emphasized in my rewrite of the rather poor article that was originally nominated for deletion, prominently including for the very reason that Mr. Reedy hates him -- because he is the first trained psychoanalyst to ever throw down the gauntlet to a corrupt Shakespeare industry, he has co-written articles with a man that Wikipedia recognizes as "one of the pioneers of psychiatric medicine specialising in psychoanalytic treatments of schizophrenia," and his work provoked a violently newsworthy response from Gary Taylor in three major periodicals covering academic politics. I would add that he's about to become much more famous in the near future, partly as a result of the vote that just transpired (Reedy, not a psychoanalyst, will let you know that I, like Mr. Waugaman, am "delusional," which is I suppose why I was just promoted to Full Professor after previously having had my PhD dissertation written about in The New York Times and praised by a Supreme Court Justice. If you are Mr. Reedy, that's all "delusional." Hmm...).

Finally, you may wonder, with me, which of the two version of the article your vote was used to rationalize deleting. Reedy's version was a lot like Reedy, before he reverted it (when he reverted my rewrite, he made that version "his" even if others contributed to it before him). It was badly written, grossly incomplete, prejudicial, and ignored many of the key facts of Dr. Waugaman's biography that make him notable. My version corrected those defects before Mr. Reedy suborned Randy Kitty and Kraxler to complete his hatchet job. I propose that you and I discuss *my* version and how it can be improved. It will be restored soon enough. Thanks for not making yourself ridiculous by redacting my comments. Here's the link:https://word.office.live.com/wv/WordView.aspx?FBsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fattachments%2Ffile_preview.php%3Fid%3D1596436277273399%26time%3D1439740858%26metadata&access_token=570495920%3AAVIyNBDNFhXxMC6yicAN882fFUUNFtw4JJmFbHyTEQ4gBA&title=wikiWaugamanmyversion.docx

Hopefully you can access the link. It worked fine for me. As you can see, I kept a copy of the work that went into this article before Dr. Waugaman was ritually erased by the very efficient team Wikipedia. Dr. Stritmatter --BenJonson (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)