User talk:David Eppstein/2016d

This is an archive of past discussions about User:David Eppstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DYK for Clio (Hendrik Goltzius)

On 5 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clio (Hendrik Goltzius), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Harvard may have been inspired by Clio? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clio (Hendrik Goltzius). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clio (Hendrik Goltzius)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dual graph

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dual 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 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Congrats. I see here that I was supposed to take less than 7 days - sorry! Anyway, nice job on the article, and thanks for working on my suggested changes. --99of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem re the delay — I'd rather have a thorough review than a quick one, and I haven't been lacking for other things to do in the meantime. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2-satisfiability

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2-satisfiability 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 Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2-satisfiability

The article 2-satisfiability you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2-satisfiability for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of the best hook for this at DYK. Maybe something about a traveling salesman getting satisfied? Sex sells, you know. E Eng 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast and easy. Thanks, Falcon! Re the DYK, it's a pretty dry article, so finding a hook seems difficult. Sadly, I think the connection to the TSP is too weak to make a good hook. One possibility:

... that 2-satisfiability can be used to schedule round-robin tournaments so that teams alternate between home and away games as much or as little as possible?

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty good, actually. Another thought would be to craft a hook around the nonogram, which works great at 100px. E Eng 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. Check this out.

Ok, nominated with the tournament hook at Template:Did you know nominations/2-satisfiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You really prefer that to the nonogram? It's so catchy! E Eng 00:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I do like the nonogram image but I couldn't come up with a catchy hook based on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

How about, ... that 2SAT can help solve a nonogram (pictured)? I fear, however, that no matter what we do the most common result of a reader clicking through will be to reinforce his school-age certainty that he will never, ever understand math. E Eng 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, added to the nom as ALT1. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 90

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rule 90 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 CheCheDaWaff -- CheCheDaWaff (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 90

The article Rule 90 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:Rule 90 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheCheDaWaff -- CheCheDaWaff (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 90

The article Rule 90 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rule 90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheCheDaWaff -- CheCheDaWaff (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dual graph

The article Dual graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dual graph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 2-satisfiability

On 29 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2-satisfiability, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 2-satisfiability can be used to schedule round-robin tournaments so that teams alternate between home and away games as much or as little as possible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2-satisfiability. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2-satisfiability), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dual graph

Hello! Your submission of Dual graph at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Vazsonyi: Difference between revisions

Response to your comment "original research, folk etymology, contradicts sourced claims that it comes from the town name Nagyvázsony", a revision of my November 1, 2016 edit. Your conjecture does not refer to any specific sources therefore it's unverifiable. The place name you listed does not invite such interpretation. Common sense: Why should someone want to omit the "Nagy" (Great) part of the place name in deriving their last name? On the other hand, I am referring to the common practice of Hungarization of Slovak last names for which the Vážny - Vazsonyi offers a rather direct phonetic link. This deletion was overcautious on your part. It contradicts the common drive for knowledge that I believe is also the original spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced in at least one of the linked articles, where the name was new enough (chosen between the world wars) for an explanation to be available — see Andrew Vázsonyi. Additionally, for both Andrew and his cousin Vilmos, Slovak ancestry is not involved — they were Jews who changed their previous Jewish last names to avoid anti-semitic persecution. Anyway, disambiguation pages aren't supposed to have sources themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to distinguish here between general and specific terms, as applied in linguistics. Your explanation substantiates the use of specific last names but not the general usage. My edit pointed to this fact which you chose to discard for reasons that sound rather dubious. Again, please, stick to the best academic standards in your editing. Thank you.

What general usage? We have a page listing three people, two of whom fit the explanation I gave. And if you're going to call on "best academic standards", the standards here for putting claims into Wikipedia involve substantiating them with sources, so where are yours? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to disregard the elephant in the room. If there is one case out of three that does not support an argument, it is not generally true and other explanations are possible. Also, your arduous defense seems to be inspired by reasons coming from outside of the academia, to be more specific, the Jewish origin of the Vazsonyis. Anyway, this talk doesn't need to escalate any further. I will get back to you when I put my hands on better resources since by far not everything can be verified using the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Make racist (and false — as it turns out, I am not Jewish) insinuations and then flounce. Where did you learn to argue so persuasively? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

HTTP 404 page

I noticed that http://www.ap.uci.edu/distinctions/chancprof.html now returns HTTP 404. I will let you contact the website if you suspect that it can be restored. I added an archiveurl for now and other dinks on your BLP. If you want any undone but do not want to touch the BLP yourself, then feel free to ask me or otherwise do as you see fit.--Judtojud (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the missing page is not an accident and that they retired the notion of "Chancellor's Professor" so I took it out of the lead. If they restore the web page, then we can put the honorific back into the lead. WP:RS and all that, you know.--Judtojud (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

They have not retired the notion. The updated url appears to be http://ap.uci.edu/titles-of-distinction/chancellors-professors/ . So please restore this information. Also, your addition of Category:Wikipedia people, despite its accuracy, appears not to be based on reliably sourced material in the text of the article, which are not optional for biographies of living people even when you know that what you are writing is accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I added some cites. If we can use livejournal.com for your year of birth (after all that nonsense the God-king coyly put the community through for years and years about his DOB), I think what I found is good enough.--Judtojud (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll trust your judgement on that, since I want to limit my involvement on that article to pointing out significant inaccuracies or new developments. I think it should be for other editors such as you to decide questions such as whether the Wikipedia involvement is significant enough to mention. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's too trivial to bother about, but the two references for Eppstein's role at Wikipedia are unsatisfactory. In general, if a secondary source indicates an event has significance, then an article can note the event as significant. For example, how would editors choose whether to mention the Wikipedia connection if the subject had made, say, 10 edits total? What about 100? 1000? So long as nothing more is attempted I don't see a problem with the text remaining. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yikes, I thought this was the article talk page (I just looked at the recent edits on the article)! Sorry, but I guess I'll leave it here for now. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I get confused by that myself sometimes. In retrospect, using something other than my real name for my editor name might have been helpful, but it's long past the point where I'd want to change that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Your easy undo

Noel Chiappa believed in working with the latest version of the article. Next time you visit your alma mater, you should go and touch skin-to-bronze, every letter of his name, one-by-one. I was not planning on showing you this diff, but...but...ah anyway. Please consider undoing your own revert and then do whatever you feel like.--172.56.0.75 (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably should have been an undo with an explanation rather than a revert, and for that I apologize. But although I think the idea of adding more sections to Maia Weinstock (the context, which you neglected to provide) is a good one, I'm not convinced that the result is an improvement. In particular you now have to scan to the bottom of the third section before seeing anything that looks like a claim of significance (being editor of MIT News) whereas in the earlier version it's in the lead where it should be. Of course the actual notability is for the Wikipedia editing and Lego, which are mentioned in an offhand way at the start of both articles but not in a way that makes them sound like an important part of her story. If you want to, go ahead and try editing again from your last version (it's still there where it always was, in the article history) — I agree with you that the article does need improvement. Oh, and lay off the personal attacks, they're not relevant, not helpful, and not conducive to getting me to do whatever it is you want me to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Vugar Ismailov

Hello. I have asked for a deletion review of Vugar Ismailov. Because you participated in the deletion discussion for this page or otherwise were interested in the page, I think, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thank you. Writer278 (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Favor

I see that you haven't contributed to WP:RX but as a fellow Wikipedia colleague of yours I will make this request anyway:

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_32#Rodopi? The book is most likely not available online and full book scans are not handled there. However can you access this book from the university library and do a full book scan from any university equipment.

The contents of this book may have special significance to you too. For example you are a computer scientist and mathematician: have you suffered from any mathematician's block in your carrer? When you are low the best way to gain enthusiasm is probably reading humanities such as the Booker/Pulitzer prize winning books. This book draws on all the Booker prize winning and nominated works upto the 90s and quotes like that I mentioned in the page are good stimulus to reading the original work. No worries if you don't want to get to the trouble doing this. Cheers. Solomon 7968 17:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Die Roten Punkte

I apologize for my rash content removal at Die Roten Punkte. It seems my HighBeam subscription has just expired. My impression is that calling their accents "questionable" is a statement of opinion that needs to have in-text attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, since the two HighBeam sources appear to be opinion reviews of the music. We shouldn't be criticizing their accents in Wikipedia's voice, and I wanted to make sure we weren't. Perhaps what we're trying to say is that the accents in the music are not the natural accents of the musicians, which wouldn't require in-text attribution, since it's a fact. But there has to be a better way to say that than "questionable". Mz7 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim that the accents are dubious, questionable, or inauthentic comes from the review, so we should probably attribute it to the reviewer. My highbeam subscription has also expired, but the still-visible first paragraph of the Irish Times article has the quote "mit ze implausible German ex-sents". Part of the issue, though, is that people editing on behalf of the band seem to be working hard, over many years, to keep even factual information (such as that the musicians are not actually siblings and not actually German) out of the article in favor of an WP:INUNIVERSE view. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Yeah, I would agree, as I sent out {{uw-coi}} today to one such user who claimed to be a representative of the band – they did edit out that real-world information and wrote a sentence to the effect of "this band is the uncontested best in the world". In the meantime, I will keep the article on my watchlist and see if I could get that HighBeam renewed. Mz7 (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tentative diagnosis

Diagnosis:

m:immediatism

We will leave it at that for now.

Partial report:

Entscheidungsproblem

etc., etc. You know the rest.

An easy FA for you

This is a C class article at the moment: Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Take a look at this FA: Acacia pycnantha. Pay attention to these trivial matters of style:

the use of {{sfn}} and {{sfnRef}}
almost always use the "work" parameter in the cites (rather than "publisher") so that the name of the publication appears in italics.
name that section "Cited texts" and gather all ISBN-bearing books to that section. (I will just start some of that scutwork for you)
section names like Notes/References whatever

Etc.

Get the Singh book and whatever. Use sfn relentlessly. Do try to explain the subject matter of course but also try to leave the reader and the FA reviewer with a sense that they understand the proof too. Maybe flatter their ego? Whatever.

Go through peer review and GA. Then on to FA. Maybe six months or so if you stick to it. Done.--172.56.32.203 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You may disagree, but my opinion is that to write well for a popular audience about mathematics, it is more important to thoroughly understand the topic itself than to use citation templates with mechanical precision. And Wiles' proof is something that I think it would take longer than six months to understand well enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The article is now neither rigorous nor complete, nor will it ever be. The Singh book is well within your grasp. What FA reviewer is going to read any of those books? Not a one, sir. Not a one.--172.56.32.203 (talk) 04:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be an FA, regardless of how polished its reference formatting is. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't/wouldn't/couldn't. Oh well.--172.56.32.203 (talk) 05:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A twofer

Why do I come to you David? It is because I trust you. On this website of ever-so-many Essjays and even Mike Godwins, I trust you. Alright, now take it slow. Easy. Zen, whatever. Here goes:

Geoffrey Miller (psychologist)

And

Template talk:Wikipedia#Do all WMF Executive Directors belong on this template

OK. Now on Geoffrey's BLP: does that first sentence summarize the article. If so, then leave it alone. Look, I know that you do not like what I did to Maia. Oh dear. I just realized what I have to do to her now. Uh, give me a minute.--172.56.32.203 (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Miller sounds like a piece of work but I'm skeptical that tweeting something stupid and getting reprimanded for it is so significant that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. On to the WMF one... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it certainly hasn't been a big deal for Donald Trump. 06:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not know if you noticed that he passed through your alma mater. That is not what brought him to my attention. That is just a coincidence. Maybe you know this already, but Google Knowledge Graph data is shown on first page when you Google his name. One of his penalties is some three year requirement to meet regularly with a faculty mentor. I think that when that time expires, we can remove that word.--172.56.32.203 (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the WMF template: my opinion is that this is one of those insignificant and overly-introspective squabbles that Wikipedia is justly infamous for. I can't bring myself to care. A pox on both your houses. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I admit it. I just wanted to tame that shrew for reverting me. I know now that she is a nice lady but too late for me. She was out-of-uniform: she does not put even one gold star in the upper right hand corner of her userpage. OK. I messed up. Oh well. Back to the proof--172.56.32.203 (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Like a breath of fresh air

Hey, buddy: we are a team now. We are working together on Maia's BLP and maybe more to come. Wow! You have no idea how many Essjays here just want to make my small, circumsized pee-pee fall off. Take a look at this diff. I thought Mike was one of the few sane, benevolent people around here. Sigh. Now he is just another licensed attorney to me. "Legislation by Congress"? That makes him either a liar or a fool.--172.56.32.192 (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Your warnings on my talkpage

First of all, before posting a warning try to justify it. This comment on the Stevo Todorcevic talkpage

Work

This article sounds as though it has been translated from Serbian or the like. It is also full of spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.175.160 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

is not a legitimate comment for being baseless and uncivil. That was the reason for its removal.

About the section you've deleted: the section WAS AND IS FULLY SOURCED and your justification of the section removal

(cur | prev) 08:08, 11 November 2016‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,263 bytes) (-274)‎ . . (remove an entire paragraph of unsourced content-free promotional bullshit) (undo | thank)

is offensive and disrespectful toward me and prof. Todorcevic. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If you find accurate descriptions of your writing to be disrespectful to Todo, you might consider that writing about him in this blatantly promotional way is itself disrespectful. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi David Eppstein.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Stevo Todorcevic

You think you do own the article?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Strange notation

I was surprised to find this strange expression apparently written by you:

(x

+ 0xaaaaaaab

)

& 0x55555555.

I took the liberty of changing it to this:

(x+0\times aaaaaaab)\ \&\ 0\times 55555555.

I don't know what that's what you intended, but that way of mixing TeX and non-TeX notation seems absurd. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the footnote? That's a standard way of writing hexadecimal: a zero, lowercase x, and string of hexadecimal digits all concatenated together with no spacing. They are not multiplication signs and your edits to change them into multiplication signs are wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Then why not write it like this:

(x+{\text{0xaaaaaaab}})

Michael Hardy (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that I find the mismatch in font and size between math text Roman and article body text Roman to be really ugly and was trying to avoid that. But since you insist... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why? We don't write arabics or romans in a font like it's computer code. What you had in the first place is right. E Eng 19:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the underlying coding was ugly in the way that the nesting of tags and parens was crossed. That too could have been fixed by moving even more out of the math part: (

x

+ 0xaaaaaaab) & 0x55555555. Of course then the parens and plus sign wouldn't match the font of the other math expressions... After all these years, Wikipedia still does math formatting really badly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a very strange answer. You find the mismatch in font and size ugly, so instead you write it in a way that has an even greater mismatch in both font and size and in addition is mis-aligned, so that the crossbar in the plus sign is a lot higher than the middle of the preceeding letter x. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@EEng@s: How about this?:

(x+{\textsf {0xaaaaaaab}})

The way it was written at first was hideous, with the initial x and the parenthesis preceding it two or three times as big as the letters following it, and the baseline on which the non-TeX part rested a lot higher than that of the x. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again more closely, M.H. is right about the weird heights; I was focused on the typeface only. What M.H. has now seems pretty good. But my TeX "truth is beauty" days are long behind me, so don't count my opinion too heavily. E Eng 00:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Using textsf as MH is now proposing is even worse. It doesn't fix the mismatch in font and size between the math formula and the body text, and it adds a new mismatch in formatting between decimal and hexadecimal numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that's right too. Can I make a suggestion? Why not raise it on the article talk page. Someone hanging out there might have some bright ideas. If ever there was a NODEADLINE issue, this is it. E Eng 01:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, except for MH's initial misunderstanding of hexadecimal, this is a perennial problem of math formatting that has little to do with that particular article. The right place for a discussion might be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics but I doubt there's much new to say there about this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but those hanging out there (assuming there really is anyone) might feel an immediate motivation to think of a solution. But wait a minute -- you, of all people, haven't found a satisfactory answer? Well, good luck. E Eng 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be for Wikipedia to support MathJax, as it used to, so that we could get more consistently nice-looking math using the standard tags. The Wikimedia developers disagree, have ripped out our previously-working MathJax support, and are difficult to influence. See my rant at http://11011110.livejournal.com/314841.html for more on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia developers are difficult to influence, you say? You amaze me! E Eng 02:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm so proud

I've been quoted – not just once, but twice – by the great Carl Hewitt! [1][2][3] E Eng 23:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Introduction to calculus

I am working on Draft:Introduction to calculus. It is the approach that I took to help save my younger brother from failing Calculus I. It worked. He was totally lost up to that time but he passed his final and the course. I would appreciate any pointers you might offer.--Samantha9798 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

See Calculus I. I imagine that it might become popular.--Samantha9798 (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculus I. As the discussion there suggests, Wikiversity may be a better choice for this sort of material. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Got it. See v:Calculus I.--Samantha9798 (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Look how beautiful v:Calculus I#Integral of the simple parabola is now that I eliminated that factored power sum.--Samantha9798 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Nonahedron

WHEN THE semiprotection has expired i will continue to editwar the article Enneahedron 88.109.203.10 (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That will only cause the protection to be extended longer, and/or you to get blocked. Don't do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dual graph

On 20 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dual graph, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that dual graphs can explain why the halls and walls of many mazes (example pictured) form interlocking trees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dual graph. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dual graph), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, David Eppstein. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Even more teamwork

Hey, buddy. I just help to improve the definition of $e$ at this barroom of a website. See the recent history of e (mathematical constant). Oh dead, oh dead. e is not some number theory thingy. It is real. Do keep paying attention to v:Calculus I, old chap. Oh, and do me a favor: TELL SEVERAL FRESHMAN ABOUT THAT PAGE. Thanks in advance.--Samantha9798 (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your place, your conext..

OK. You are now within Category:English Wikipedia people. That i good. That is a sign of maturity. Oh, David. I love you so, as if you were some Jung to my Freud. I love you. I trust you. You are my lover.--Samantha9798 (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

David, back slowly toward the door. Make no sudden moves. Help is on the way. E Eng 15:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like the right response... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And now help has indeed arrived. Sam turns out to be a previously-known sockpuppet, and has been blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculus I‎

As I understand it the original redirect was not created by the sock, so why was the article speedy deleted as having been created by a sock? The discussion was over whether to delete the article or to restore it to the original redirect, and there was no consensus as yet. I don't particularly care either way, but closing it as a speedy seems incorrect. Meters (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was speedied; you can argue with the person who did that whether it was correct or not. But with the article deleted, the AfD is moot and there's no point keeping it open. If you want to re-create a redirect, go ahead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that you speedied it. My apologies. Meters (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The meat grinder

David: you really must take another look at v:Calculus I. Mr. Skin T. Bronze (MSTB).--2602:304:CDC1:90:B9:9F84:5618:7F5A (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Moser–de Bruijn sequence

On 2 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Moser–de Bruijn sequence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the positions of nonzero digits in two reciprocal irrational numbers, 1/3.30033000000000033... = 0.30300000303..., are given by the Moser–de Bruijn sequence and its double? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moser–de Bruijn sequence. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Moser–de Bruijn sequence), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

clarification

I was calling the way the hook was edited surreptitious [4], not the edit itself. I obviously have no problem with using the word "Nazi".
It would just have been better if an Alt hook were proposed in lieu of the original hook, or at least the editor had informed everyone they had modified it. Without that, I had no idea what Yoninah was talking about when she pinged me to complain and had to comb through the edit history to try to piece together what happened and then direct her to the appropriate party. LavaBaron (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No prob, bro. LavaBaron (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Franklin's electrostatic machine/GA1

David Eppstein, I wasn't sure that you saw that the nominator said a couple of weeks ago that he was ready for you to resume the review. (He didn't remove the note on the GA nominee template that had requested the delay, which may have confused things.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, but thanks for the reminder. There's another one by the same nominator that I also need to re-review. Real life got in the way the last week or two. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Other review done. Franklin still to go, I hope better. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Best of luck with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

MSTB here again

Uhm. Er.... Sigh. Oh well. Prof. Eppstein, I do like you. I do. http://thermo4thermo.org/ . --2603:3024:1813:2700:5528:E5D1:E603:FAD7 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Weigh-in Needed from Eds with Science Background

The issue of "junk journals" has come-up in a scientist-related AfD, e.g. my latest comment. I don't think this is receiving due consideration from many of the panelists, but would appreciate a heads-up in case I'm over-emphasizing this. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

David, can I ask why you made this edit? Do you understand why I provided that citation and what it was supporting in the article? If it was being used to push an opinion about what was in the paper itself, I could understand that, but the citation is here being used simply to support simple factual statements: (i) that she published research on the specific topic that was explicitly mentioned in the award; (ii) that she co-authored the paper; and (iii) that the paper was published in November 2013. What is controversial about that? If anything, by removing the citation, you are preventing the reader from seeing the sort and type of paper that was published, which is verging on censorship. I understand the concerns with the journal itself, but removing a citation like that simply because of concerns about the journal seems a knee-jerk reaction. The fact that she published a paper in this journal is not something that can be written out of history. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in that journal can be a reliable source. See my comments about it in the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that. But how else do you give a citation for the fact that she published that paper? Are you saying that the journal didn't publish the paper? There is a paper titled 'Production and Evaluation of the Physical Properties of Briquettes from Carpenters' Waste', on the website of the IJEATE. She and others are named as co-authors. I absolutely agree that the journal is bogus (I read the article at the link you provided), but how else do you support a statement that she published a paper in that journal? Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If her publication of that specific paper in that specific journal is not discussed by reliable secondary sources, it should simply not be mentioned. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, that will be difficult. :-) It is cited by one other paper. Does that count? Can you look at the citation? I think it is cited here, in Applied Mechanics and Materials. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is it so important to mention this publication? It should only be an embarrassment for its author to be in such a bad journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. You are still thinking too much from the perspective of 'Western academic'. Have you not considered that the author, possibly not aware of all this, may be the victim here? She may have thought she was publishing in a perfectly respectable journal. That is probably where most of the papers come from. Do you think she got training in how to avoid submitting to bogus journals? Should I ask elsewhere about that citation? Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Because you're not getting the answer you want here? She may well be a victim, but that's exactly why we should avoid including this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave this for now, but may come back to it later. It has left a bad taste in my mouth. Can I encourage you to read around and read some of the background to this, and try and see how your approach comes across here. As an aside, if she had put a copy of that paper on a personal website, with only a brief mention of where it was published, would you still object to linking to it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should presume she is a "victim". There is often a co-dependent relationship between authors, who want to pad their CVs, and junk journals, which gladly publish their work, often for a fee. This issue is not even germane to the debate. The article is likely to be kept, in my estimation, portending a significant debate on the other side of the AfD regarding how to balance the fact that she has awards for research papers that mainstream scientists have never even read. Agricola44 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Victor W. Marek

I've seen you bravely removed the notability tag from the article on Wojciech Rytter. Maybe you have enough authority/knowledge/courage/guts to do it also for Victor W. Marek. alx-pl d 14:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't want to engage in a revert war on the article about Marek. alx-pl d 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pythagorean tiling

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pythagorean 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 Tessaract2 -- Tessaract2 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I've almost finished, however I need a second opinion on the copyvio rating. Is it possible you could give me a second opinion? Tessaract2^Talk 19:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tessaract2: I can assure you that the text of our article was not copied from that site. It looks to me like the usual example of another web site taking their content from us, rather than vice versa. But if you don't want to take my word for it, check the dates of that site (self-reported as roughly 2 years ago, or using say archive.org) vs the dates for the same text in our article history (e.g. the DYK version from 2011). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:Then you'll be happy to know that this nomination has (most likely, anyways) turned into a pass! Tessaract2^Talk 19:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pythagorean tiling

The article Pythagorean tiling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pythagorean tiling for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tessaract2 -- Tessaract2 (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm 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 Tessaract2 -- Tessaract2 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm

The article Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm 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:Nearest-neighbor chain algorithm for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tessaract2 -- Tessaract2 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Correction OK?

While I changed the writing on the page Twin prime I thought it was funny that the author of OEIS: A165959 can not copy and use it. It would take some work to know that I wrote it, but I did. Note the email address at my talk page and the email on the paper at the sequence by the author. John W. Nicholson (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Better, anyway. It is still hard to understand, because it is so vaguely worded and context-free. One has to follow several links to find that it is about the gap between Ramanujan primes and small associated Ramanujan primes (whatever those are), with still no idea why 3 rather than some other number is the gap size that would correspond to the twin prime conjecture. And although OEIS is a good enough source, it would be more reassuring to have a journal paper saying the same thing, in part to get some idea whether it is an important connection to another piece of mathematics or just a trivial rewriting of the same problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Title Case or Sentence case

So, should they be Title Case or Sentence case? Looking at about 20 of them in the motto field in Wikipedia and excluding the ALL CAPS, they are a mix of the two. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The church uses title case e.g. at [5] and [6] so that's what I'd go with. I'll add this to my opinion on the RfC. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Brjuno number

Hi. I know that you are expert in computer science. You have reverted my edit : new reference. Why do you say that "it is not a reliable source" ? Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Because researchgate lists self-published preprints, rather than the peer-reviewed and published versions of papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Benjamin Franks

Hi David, I strongly agree with your comment here; but can I ask why you voted to delete the article on Benjamin Franks? The article now cites, among other things, two reviews in academic journals, two reviews in popular magazines, and a peer reviewed article by another theorist solely about Franks's work. For me, that's enough to meet the GNG if we are ignoring the (in my view, artificial) distinction between articles about academics and articles about their work. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

That is far far below the level of impact usually expected for WP:PROF#C1. My opinion is that WP:PROF sets a higher bar than WP:GNG, and that's a good thing — we should not have articles about academics whose works have only been cited a single-digit number of times, as (even though that meets the minimal standard of GNG) that low level of citation indicates that the person is not really making much of an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but this is precisely my point- what I'm struggling with. I am not claiming that Franks meets the guidelines set out at WP:ACADEMIC. I've no opinion on that. But I am claiming that he meets the GNG. A failure to meet the subject-specific requirements does not necessarily entail that a person isn't notable, as they may be notable for some other reason. According to WP:NOTABILITY: a subject is notable, emphasis mine, if "[i]t meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" (and is not excluded by WP:NOT). This is approvingly quoted at the subject-specific guideline for academics, which notes that academics can still be notable for reasons other than meeting the GNG. If Franks meets the GNG, and I contend that his work has indeed "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it shouldn't matter whether he meets the bar set by the subject-specific guideline. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The existence of an appropriate level of coverage is not a binary thing. You can have multiple independent sources and still have an article deleted. What helps win AfDs are sources that demonstrate broad impact. For instance, someone with an obituary in the New York Times is far less likely to have their article deleted than someone with a death notice in a small-town weekly. And it's the same with academics — writing one book with two reviews, each in obscure academic journals, might seem to pass the letter of the requirement for nontrivial coverage in multiple sources (two is after all "multiple") but it does not pass GNG as it is actually applied in most AfDs. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Consistently applied to academics, maybe. But this is my point; people seem ready and willing to ignore the GNG as it is written when it comes to academics. Consistently applied to anything else? It trounces the requirement. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements some time; you can always find someone to support keeping any article about any element of D&D or Transformers, third party coverage or not. A passing mention in a third party source and people are taking up arms to keep the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

But I accept that this is an extreme case. Look at other biographies, especially other biographies for creative types. A few sources reviewing the work of the individual and it'll be kept. And this is surely right, if we support the GNG. But with academics, it seems to be different. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ami Radunskaya

On 24 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ami Radunskaya, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ami Radunskaya, a mathematician who heads the Association for Women in Mathematics, spent ten years as a cellist and music composer between high school and college? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ami Radunskaya. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ami Radunskaya), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Coding and Programming

Can you explain the idea behind coding, how it starts from one point and ends with results. The disciplined mind required, the essential skills required and the time and inner motivation needed for engaging in learning. Many say Python is the easiest language to understand coding. But I get dispirited by reading through it - I cant find the easiness or grasp for understanding and adapting it to fun projects (I am interested in statistics and have a dream about making android games). Coding looks like a foreign language that could be only operated in an unknown realm. I would like to know your opinion, suggestions and experience for understanding coding and programming. Good day.38.95.108.247 (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's really something better learned by doing than by reading. You should try taking a course on the subject; it shouldn't be difficult to find one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I am being a scrooge about it. I still consider it would be a purposeful hobby. Bye & Happy Christmas.38.95.108.247 (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Clique problem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clique problem 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

EquineSky1

Hi. I'm EquineSky1. I've been blocked from editing and cannot appeal my block on my account since I cannot edit. I only thought I was providing true information and i really do think that Ryan Ross was in fall out boy. Please unblock me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c8:c200:63e0:c82b:1ad4:6293:7f07 (talk • contribs)

Uh huh. And you also believed he was in Pencey Prep and New Found Glory? Perhaps you are a little gullible. I try not to be. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Map folding

On 30 December 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Map folding, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the number of ways to fold a strip of stamps is always divisible by the number of stamps in the strip? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Map folding. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Map folding), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 00:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)