User talk:David Eppstein/2017c

King me!

Please bestow autopatrollednew page review/patrol and pending changes reviewer. I swear I will use these only for good, not evil. EEng 15:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

(stalker) You've been autopatrolled for a year already :-| — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 16:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't get my coffee this morning. EEng 16:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done; see your talk. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Eric Katz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Katz&curid=54434627&diff=788482957&oldid=788482855 Yeah, he did drop from associate to assistant, and I have no idea why. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bernoulli number

Hi David Eppstein, since you once contributed to the page Bernoulli number I'd appreciate your comment or vote to my question in the talk page. Regards: Herbmuell (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC).

Poor quality editing by me, which you rightly pointed out.

Hello, David. I take your point in this edit summary: "If you're going to lobotomize this as a copyvio, could you at least leave a coherent version behind rather than a badly-formatted fragment?". I accept that I did not deal with the problem in the best way. However, I also think you could perhaps have chosen better words in which to express your valid point. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Block needed

[1] Let me suggest indef at this point. User may have been HERE once, but seems NOTHERE now, given that his entire activity for the last five years has been to use his userpage as a webhost. He can explain in his unblock request what he actually plans to do to contribute to the project. EEng 18:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried to avoid a block, but didn't find a way. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Told you. EEng 19:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Tangram

The GIF demonstrates the assembly of a tangram, please Could you reassess? Thank you. Leandroxavier (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It demonstrates a dissection of a square to a hexagon by pieces that are not tangram pieces. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Need your expertise, please?

Supersymmetric_theory_of_stochastic_dynamics - now at AfD. Please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Too late for the dubious non-admin close, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder if my text was visible only to me. Just curious... is the math (formulas) legitimate? Annnywaaay...thank you for the effort, David. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's too far out of my area for me to tell whether this is an appropriate survey of standard material or an inappropriate synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing comment on deleted page

Hi David Eppstein! I didn't know how else to contact you. My name is Danielle Vanzura and about 3.5 years ago someone wrote a fake wikipedia page about me that was deleted. Now, when you Google my name, the discussion regarding the deletion comes up, and a comment from you appears that references the contents of the article. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind deleting that comment? I would prefer I not be associated with that article and your comment still references the inappropriate nature of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spilledxmilk (talk • contribs) 18:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I reverted your blanking of the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Vanzura, as that discussion is a record of an administrative action taken and is required to be maintained here at Wikipedia. However, I added a {{NOINDEX}} template to the page which may prevent it from being indexed in the future by Google and other search engines. This will likely not prevent the page from being included in search results immediately (not until Google next crawls the page and detects the template), but neither would your blanking do so, since the name is part of the page title. See Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. General Ization ^Talk 19:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And I have been advised I was mistaken -- and the discussion has been hidden from public view (not deleted per se). General Ization ^Talk 19:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I would have been happy to courtesy-blank the AfD for you but it looks like someone else already got there first. @General Ization:: see WP:CBLANK. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 19:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Akhtar Ali Kureshi

It appears the same editor whose duplicate !vote you deleted may have voted 3x, possibly once as an IP. Perhaps you already did a CU and found no connection? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser, so I can't easily detect that sort of thing, except when the editors make it obvious to anyone. In this case, it seems likely but not certain to be the same person. So far, though, it's harmless enough, because whoever closes the AfD will no doubt come to the same conclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nina Zanjani -- Reverting Unexplained Edit

Fellow Wikipedian,

Regarding your comment on my talk page, the Nina Zanjani article is a good example of where I reverted an unexplained change made by IP 81.231.229.243. I would welcome your thoughts on how best to handle this IP user. I was merely reverting that person's changes -- which were indeed unexplained. Your own change, in fact, was unexplained, too. So other editors don't know what your issue/concern was. If you and IP editor 81.231.229.243 suddenly have information to attest to Nina Zanjani's Iranian citizenship, please add it, but don't just change it and not leave an edit summary and then revert those who seek clarity on what the changes are. I'm not going to edit war over this. When Wikipedians align with IP users and make wanton changes, there's not much I can do. Thank you. GetSomeUtah (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That is false. You did not revert the IP editor's changes. The IP editor changed "Swedish actress of Iranian origin" to "Iranian-Swedish actress", a more-or-less content-neutral change. You removed her Iranian origin entirely. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the IP user's change was neutral. And there are many other cases where the IP user made the straightforward changes from Swedish to Iranian-Swedish. But I am outnumbered by you and the IP user. I see you have also reverted my request for a citation for the very specific fact that there are "63,828 Iranians in Sweden." Perhaps that is common knowledge. I dunno, but as per WP guidelines, I will move on in the face of determined opposition, and you and IP user 81.231.229.243 can have all the uncited, unexplained stuff you want in Iranian Swedes. Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Students of Academics

Hello! I noticed you reverted an edit to Jitendra Malik's page in which I added a list of his students, on the grounds that it was an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). It's not obvious to me that "a list of an academic's doctoral students" falls into any of the explicit categories in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm also not aware of a Wikipedia community consensus that complete information on a professor's doctoral students falls under this classification. For instance, I found nothing along those lines in the notability criteria for academics WP:ACADEMIC. Further, in the infobox for academics there is a field for "Doctoral Students" and another field for "Notable Doctoral Students" which to me implies that both fields are valid. Is there a resource to which you could direct me? In my opinion (and I suspect in the opinion of many academics, perhaps yourself included?) one of the most significant contributions of a researcher to his or her field is the doctoral students they supervise, and therefore merits inclusion in an encyclopedia entry that focuses on what makes the researcher important. I think this is especially true for academics like Malik whose doctoral students tend to make up a disproportionate fraction of the front-lines of their field, even if they don't (yet) merit their own articles. What are your thoughts on this? -- Straysuit (talk)

We generally only list bluelinked students in that field. Otherwise for academics like Malik with many many students it would get too overwhelming. And (unlike other sites) Wikipedia is not intended to be a complete database of all academic genealogy. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many templates have obsolete parameters which "seemed like a good idea at the time" but which now are inconsistent with general editorial practice. So just because Doctoral students is there doesn't mean it should be used. EEng 15:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

However, Straysuit, I noticed that the mathematics genealogy project page for Malik [2] lists significantly fewer students than the ones you added to the article about Malik here. You might want to do some updates there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

On Irvine

Hi, having re-written the svg-creation software to take into account what you said and having uploaded an improved version of an up-to-date Irvine, CA svg file, I reverted your change back to what I had. It now works by optimizing positioning relative to convex hulls of the state map and the county map to minimize the maximum of the length and width. Please let me know what you think of it now as feedback is very helpful! Thanks! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning or block needed

[3] [4] EEng 12:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Gilliam shot first. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Reporting polynomial complexities

Regarding you constructive comments on Talk:Time complexity, it could be less confusing for any reader if you remarked that polynomial complexities can be reported in terms of something like "$O(nL)$ (pseudo-) arithmetic operations on numbers with $O(L)$ digits". The complexity of the Ellipsoid method for linear programming is reported in the Wikipedia article Linear programming as $O(n^{4}L)$ pseudo-arithmetic operations on numbers with $O(L)$ digits. Everybody understands this is polynomial without explicitly saying it. This is neither vague nor wrong; the fact that some of the operations might work on numbers with much less than $L$ digits changes nothing. The exact complexity depends a lot on the machine you use, and one might avoid going into such details when the only important thing is polynomiality. If you use Word-RAM with word size $w=L$, then you get $O(n^{4}L)$. On the multi-tape or single-tape TM, you might find yet-another complexities, you pretend to be the TM expert so I hope you really know this better than me. Daniel.porumbel (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Simson line

Dao Thanh Oai's generalization of the Simson line with ten papers. Why You deleted his results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.67.36.135 (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you talk about yourself in the third person often? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I saw the papers due to Dao's result, so I wrote the result due to Dao? Why I can not? Why You deleted, please give your main reason, which law you using to delete the results? Or You hate Dao by your own reason? --2405:4800:1486:CBF0:5519:B8D1:75D9:3096 (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

What a coincidence that you, 27.67.36.135, and Dao all geolocate to the same place. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Dao's work on vi.wikipedia, he wrote all most article about Eulidean Geometry on vi.wiki. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/created.py?name=Eightcirclestheorem&server=viwiki&ns=,,&redirects=none --2405:4800:1486:CBF0:5519:B8D1:75D9:3096 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, User:Eightcirclestheorem, blocked as a sockpuppeteer. That's the part I was trying to remember the details of; thanks for reminding me. Can you suggest a reason why I shouldn't just block you two fpr sockpuppet evasion? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Billiard-ball computer citations

There was previously (and now/still/again is) a mix of CS1 ({{cite news}} and CS2 ({{citation}}). Could you help unify the article to one or the other style? DMacks (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Where "mix" means a single citation out of six was in a different format. But ok, I'll fix that one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't look closely at the balance of 1 vs 2, so I randomly picked one and started adjusting as I went along. DMacks (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fei-Yue Wang

Thanks for the rewrite. I was meaning to take a crack at it today but you did a nice job. Meters (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! As you wrote, it was in terrible shape previously. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where the heated delete opinion is coming from. A bad article about a notable subject is not a deletion candidate. Meters (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Image

Apologies! I did not know about that particular image policy. I will try and see if I can't go to Hodad's and take a picture of their storefront and the Guido burger. Thank you for letting me know though! @Rob talk 09:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification, please

When there are new developments (substantiated and verified by 2ndary & 3rd party RS), and an editor adds the information to an existing article, and another editor reverts that update stating TMI, and the editor who originally added it reverts to put it back...on whom does the onus fall at that point? ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD. Don't re-add, discuss. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What if there's WP:TAGTEAM involved (which I know is difficult to prove), and the original editor gets their work reverted again because the alleged "team" doesn't want the information in the article (be it a company or BLP)? How should a GF editor respond to that? Is an RfC the only resolution (beyond DRN)? Is it appropriate or even acceptable that an established veteran editor has to call an RfC for every single edit they make to an article or series of articles of the same genre? I know the best course of action when it comes to NPR, but I just need a bit of validation for my thoughts regarding the tougher decisions, dork that I am. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I usually find a relevant WikiProject or noticeboard and ask for third opinions there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Unilaterally ending merge discussion

Hi, David. I noticed that you removed the merge tag on Polynomial-time algorithm for approximating the volume of convex bodies. You were the only other person to yet comment in that discussion and you should not have removed the merge tag unilaterally. You skipped the usual consensus-building process and you violated the consensus editing norm on how to end a merge discussion. (I hadn't noticed you removed the tag and was periodically checking that discussion over the last couple days waiting to see if anybody else comments; but, as you ended the discussion, that was a waste of time.) If you so strongly felt that it was a poor merge suggestion, you ought to have just asked me to withdrawal the proposal.

I acknowledge that you feel this is high importance topic and it may be an area of your expertise; yet it is not clearly established that the article satisfies our litmus test for inclusion as an separate article, the notability guideline, via reliable third-party references. If indeed you are very familiar with this topic, than you are hopefully aware of some such references you could add. I just did a search a moment ago may have just found one possible source but a lot more might be warranted. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It was a bad merge proposal for multiple reasons (notability of the topic, inappropriateness of the proposed merge target) and you should feel bad for continuing to push it. There are many sources on this topic, as you would discover if you tried using Google Scholar to look at the other works citing the one already cited there. I merely hadn't had time yet to expand the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters much if it was one of the worst merger proposals ever. Just ending a discussion another editor has started in good faith is anti-collaborative and violates our norms regarding ending a merge discussion. I didn't start this thread in support of the merge. I started this thread in support of proper procedure. It would have been proper for you to object to the merge in the discussion and add why you believed the article passes notability and why the suggested target was inappropriate. You would have found that I'm quite reasonable and would have agreed to withdrawal the proposal given convincing evidence. Instead you just ended the discussion with "bad merger topic" as if we are to simply take it on your authority. Where in WP:MERGECLOSE does it say that's an acceptable way of closing a merger proposal? Do you maintain that it is proper for you to immediately end suggested mergers by other editors simply by saying "bad merger topic"? Jason Quinn (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

When Wikipedia's bureaucratic processes can be predicted to produce a lot of tedium with little useful effect, we are encouraged to skip past them rather than blindly following rules for rules' sake. See WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Why are you still arguing about this instead of doing something more useful? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

SNOW, and especially IAR, do not apply here. SNOW is meant to prevent long pointless discussion, not to prevent any discussion; and IAR is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to do whatever you like. As an admin ought to know how sketchy your invocation of them here is. Regarding this thread, I believe I have made myself fairly clear that my concern was based on your conduct. That you failed to address this, and framed it or interpreted it as a content dispute, is disappointing. The wiki model is based on cooperation. Uncooperative editors who act like mavericks harm editor retention and damage the long term future of this project, this is doubly true for editors who are admins. You could have simply wrote "oops, yeah, you're right I should have explained myself better... sorry about that" but you haven't. Instead you doubled down on the idea that you can decide consensus and notability on your own even when you shouldn't, or to decide consensus for conversations that haven't yet occurred. Your rudely dismissive replies here have increased my concern regarding your conduct and now I also have concerns regarding your judgment and grasp of policy. You (rhetorically and as a back-handed way of saying "shut up") asked me why I continue to discuss this, and now I've told you. Ideally, you will accept this thread as a reminder not to forget to engage with editors and explain your thinking so others can know your reasoning (people can't read minds, you know). That's all that's asked. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

You should think about rules less, and about content more. This is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia, and your argumentation here is entirely about other things than that. You still haven't even admitted that you were wrong about the specific content issue, and you haven't even tried to defend your position on it. Until you do, I see no point in continuing to engage with you. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's cute the way JQ linked Get Out of Jail Free, in case anyone doesn't know what that is. EEng 23:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

cairo svg

Hi. If you have problems with it ( An unsuccessful attempt to use CairoSVG to generate small vector-graphics PDF files) , What about http://projects.haskell.org/diagrams/ ? --Adam majewski (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. But if I want to generate images algorithmically I already know how to do that in Python, so what I'm really looking for is a way to convert drawings created in a GUI into small pdf files. I'm skeptical that this is a good solution for that, especially when the pdf back-end for that project is user-contributed and marked as dormant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Decimal number vs Decimal

Hi, David - Decimal number was a redirect to Decimal but another editor removed the redirect and stuck an under construction tag/in use tag on it. I asked them to explain why, but I'd also like to hear your expert opinion. Should it be a redirect or does it have potential as a standalone? Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 02:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

D.Lazard has a long history of good contributions to mathematics articles here. And I think it's a notable topic. But it is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "decimal number", so I have moved his new stub to "decimal fraction" where it more properly belongs, and restored the redirect from "decimal number" to "decimal". There is already a hatnote from decimal to decimal (disambiguation), and a link from there to decimal fraction. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have explained my edit at Talk:Decimal fraction D.Lazard (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Irony

The really amusing point for me in all this is that David Eppstein who has been driving to delete this article from the beginning, and who like myself is published in recreational mathematics, has next to no notability yet has an article all about himself. I'd be surprised if more than 50 people have ever heard of him. There's ample evidence here of my writing for the Daily Telegraph and Prospect magazine but he decides to ignore it to suit his own agenda. In the last analysis, Eppstein is a mediocre talent who tries to reduce others to below his level. Deleting this article won't achieve that because I don't rate his ability. He lacks originality and is too rigid in his thinking. :) BRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.157 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, the author of the above is the subject of WP:Articles_for_deletion/Barry_R._Clarke_(2nd_nomination). Extra points for being an authorship-of-Shakespeare obsessive. EEng 15:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the subject of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barryispuzzled. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I was leaving that as a puzzle for the reader. EEng 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Probable merge...

Do you think that Unitary operator could be merged with Unitary transformation.Originally asserted at Ticket:2017072510014582, I seem to primarily agree.But obviously, this could be better tackled by someone from the discipline..If you seem to agree too, I would be prob. asking the editor to launch a merge-proposal.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I know enough to understand the mathematical meanings, but not really enough to understand their significance, and whether these concepts are distinct enough in their application despite the mathematical similarity to warrant having two separate articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Using my limited mathematical knowledge, I tried to retrieve some details about the topic (from books I collected in the camps for IMO) and found the things to be fairly similar.But I too lack any expertise, by miles, to make a definitive judgment.And thus, am going to prob. advice for a merge-request!Winged Blades ^Godric 07:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

University of California San Diego (no comma)

Hey, thanks for your edit on Ian Agol. I'm in the process of removing the comma from the University of California San Diego's name wiki-wide. This article should shed some light on why I'm doing this. The following sources use the new name: CNN, NBC San Diego, TechCrunch, Times of San Diego, San Diego Union-Tribune, Seeker, San Diego Reader, and TIME Magazine, among others. I'm hoping that achieving enough consistency on less prominent UCSD articles will persuade editors to see the merits of moving the major pages, such as University of California, San Diego, List of University of California, San Diego people and Category:University of California, San Diego despite the technical effort that will be required to do so. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns about these edits! TritonsRising (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Useless campus image managers gotta justify their wasted salaries by image managing, I guess. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please have compassion. They're facing increasingly stiff competition from tripe-writing useless library brand managers [5]. EEng 11:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In their defense, I had never recognized UCSD until I saw the name written without the comma. The identity seems so much stronger TritonsRising (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You state on your user page that you're a student there. Wouldn't you rather they kept your tuition lower, or spent that money on more faculty to reduce your class sizes, rather than continuing to bloat the campus bureaucracy by hiring people whose function is to remove commas from well-established names? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what I do or don't want—I'm just here to get my degree and keep the Wikipedia pages up to date. Aside from the completely inane decision to remove the comma, I do consider the new branding pretty impressive. The campus has never really engaged with the San Diego community, so seeing the Believe posters at Comic-Con and the "Break Things Better" campaign on buses and around campus is reasonably exciting. Most colleges have a cohesive identity by their fiftieth anniversary, so it's nice to see UCSD UC San Diego making an effort to be bold and appealing. If anything, I'm glad that the bureaucrats who were probably already there are finally doing something to earn their pay. --TritonsRising (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Mashup

David, I wanted to thank you personally for over a minute of uncontrolled laughter. I'm still thinking of a suitable award. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

minor edit

I think it was wrong to mark this as a minor edit. Woscafrench (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? All it did was remove a pointless wikilink. It didn't change even one character of the actual article text. So how is that not minor? In any case, it's not me you should complain to; it's the Wikimedia developers who decided that rollbacks are automatically flagged as minor. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes really. It is not a minor edit because you are judging on wikipedia's behalf that another user's good faith contribution was pointless. I am unsure on your statement on rollbacks. The rollbacks I have made recently were not flagged as minor. Woscafrench (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

A review of your own contributions, including those to this very thread, reveal a grip on the concept of minor less than masterful, so why don't you put a sock in it? EEng 11:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Here, David, have one of mine. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Funny you should have been reviewing my contributions. I had just been reviewing your block log. Perhaps you understand better than most why I haven't "put a sock in it". Woscafrench (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think bringing up my block log will score any points with anyone here (or anywhere else) you must have missed the box on my user page:

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

But if you want to continue embarrassing yourself, go right on flailing. EEng 14:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You have misunderstood why I said that. Never mind. Woscafrench (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

If so, I apologize. EEng 18:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY seems appropriate. I still can't think of any legitimate reason to pick out that one edit, among all my others, as the one to object to. It's not even the most dubious of the sequence of ten edits reverting the same editor that it belongs to. And it seems especially inexplicable for this complaint to come from an editor whose own "minor" edits include one replacing "Jews" by "Israelites". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

That is, in fact, one of the edits I was referring to earlier. I agree re DENY. EEng 18:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Expertise needed

David, would you look at Online transaction processing and let me know if you think it's adequately sourced and works as a standalone? It has been in the NPP queue for a while now because of sourcing issues, but a couple of sources were recently added. Thx in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

MDPI

Hello. I noticed you reverted my edit on MDPI. Can you please explain the reason for the revert? Do you think MDPI is known mainly because of the fact it was once included in Beall's list? I think there is no evidence of this, and in case of no strong evidence this statement is obviously biased in the lead. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is mainly known as a publisher of dubious repute. Whether you want to interpret that as because of Beall's list or via other sources such as [6] or [7] or [8] is up to you, but removing it and making them out to be spotless and pure exemplars of academic publishing would be dishonest. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing in the article's talk page. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

AIA Rhode Island

Hi David, Would you restore this page just so I can copy it out, so it can be advanced offline? You tagged it as not having indication of being WP:notable - and you're right, I was slow in completing the page and responding to your request to provide citations. thanks, JMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmtaia (talk • contribs) 03:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone else tagged it; I merely carried out the deletion request. Anyway, it's now restored to User:Jmtaia/AIA Rhode Island for you to work on. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing for research scientists, ordering

I agree that it's an offputting beginning. Would you find the old edit acceptable if the "Getting started" section came before the "Content discussions" section (modified from "General considerations")? HLHJ (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

My general feeling is that all of this is in the category of "general advice for newbies" having little to do with the specific topic of the essay and little feel for which pieces of advice will actually be useful and which are likely to come across as hostile condescension. (Don't underestimate how offputting such impressions can be: most academics have little free time and little patience for wasting of it. I have certainly myself backed away from volunteering on projects where I thought I could do some good and I thought the project would be interesting but I also thought the people running the projects were condescending to me.) I think it would be better to link to general-advice-for-newbie type essays rather than copying there content within that essay; that way, at least, academics reading it will see that it's just general advice for newbies rather than taking it as indicative of how Wikipedia editors think of academics specifically. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right, there's too much general material, and too much total material. I see the following problems with the current version:

• it ignores the presence of Visual Editor in the UI
• it starts in an offputting way, running from how to create a username straight into "You need to leave your ego and credentials by the door".
• it runs "You'll face these things that you will find offputting, and you'll have to deal with them", rather than "You'll face these things for these reasons". There's research showing that people handle rejection better if they see it as having systemic rather than personal causes, so when Wikipedia is offputtingly different from academia for a reason (no original research, lots of vandals), it'd be good to give it.
• any introduction to academia includes social support, mostly in the form of a supervisor. The article doesn't mention social support at all.

I'll try to include these things in a series of incremental edits which shorten or at least do not lengthen the article, while reducing general advice to links. Please ping me here if you can think of other improvements. HLHJ (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Finished for now. I've removed 325 characters net, but added a lot of external links, headings, and whitespace, so it is more succint than that would suggest. HLHJ (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Topics now missing are: advice about article creation, advice about puppetry. HLHJ (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm cluttering your talk page, so I've copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia editing for research scientists#Size and specificity, and will post anything further there. HLHJ (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

John Searle

May I get your opinion on what I was doing on John Searle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and 97.92.21.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? There seem to be a lot of people whitewashing articles. I am not sure what to do in these cases. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not pure vandalism, so you should have been calling for help on one of the noticeboards rather than repeatedkly reverting yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs

I have pointed you to the guidelines that state that DOB and DOD should be included in the lead paragraph. So determined are you to change what I did that you actually inserted a place of birth between brackets after I'd removed it - did you actually look or did you just undo my change without checking? Please stop edit warring. Deb (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, we're talking about [9] et seq.:

Actually, MOS:OPENPARA is clear: "Birth and death dates are important information about the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context." There's been a recent reevaluation throughout the project of what should go in these context-setting parens, including a realization that most of what's been stuffed in there distracts readers rather than enlightening them. EEng 13:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• • In the recent discussion, there was no consensus whatsoever for the change you are trying to make. Read the paragraph before the one you cite, which says clearly that dates of birth and death should be included in the opening paragraph. With your changes, that would not be the case. Why is this particular article suddenly becoming an issue when thousands of others are not? See also the examples of good practice in the same place, all of which conform to the standard I am trying to keep to. Deb (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

says clearly that dates of birth and death should be included in the opening paragraph – No, it says The opening paragraph should usually have dates of birth and death, then goes on to say if they [i.e. the full birth and death dates] are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range (in brackets after the person's full name) may be sufficient to provide context. This particular article is suddenly becoming an issue because you are making an issue of it [10] and are editwarring against at least two other editrs to make the article conform to your misguided idea that rigid consistency is what makes good articles. Now settle down before you become the latest grandfathered admin to be called on the carpet for unfamiliarity with basic guidelines and how the project works. EEng 14:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm "going against" you, am I? How dare I? I ask you again, what is the hidden agenda here? Why are you so concerned about this one article and yet you have no problem with me fixing other intros? It is clearly stated that DOB and DOD should be in the lead paragraph. Your changes mean that they are not. Deb (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I do have a problem with your "fixing" other intros – I just didn't know you were doing it. Busybodies who go around fixing things that aren't broken in order to make themselves feel they're doing something useful, when in fact they're just roiling a lot of watchlists for nothing other than to ride some personal hobbyhorse – and then editwarring over it, for Christ's sake – are a pet peeve of mine. Your talk of "hidden agendas" sounds crazy, and your apparent inability to read and understand the content guideline you keep misquoting is now bringing this into WP:CIR territory. EEng 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm not interested in your "pet peeves", but I will be interested to see what other contributors think. Deb (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What's fine with you – the crazy part, or the CIR part? No one's interested in your pet peeves either. The difference is that the rest of us aren't going around imposing ours willy-nilly on zillions of articles. EEng 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

SPI on User:Wiwigald32

Just letting you know I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiwigald32 in response to edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Marchand (academic). -- Pingumeister^(talk) 11:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I probably would have done so myself, eventually, but I spent most of today on an airplane instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Orthogonal convex hull article

Prof. Eppstein,

A while a go I started editing the Orthogonal convex hull article and you made some comment on my contributions. I recently started to write major changes to the article as I proposed in the article's discussion page. I have a draft of my proposed changes in my sandbox. I would like to know if your are willing to make any comments on the first two sections, just to know if you agree on the overall structure and information. I will be completing the article during next week.

Regards!, Carlos Alegría (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The most obvious issue with your new content is that it appears to be entirely unsourced. Once you source it, I can take a more careful look, but it's difficult to evaluate without sources. For instance, unless I see sources giving balanced coverage to your four variants, I have no idea how to tell whether it is really true that they are all treated more or less with equal seriousness by researchers. Another issue is that the first (untitled) section is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, but by filling it with these definitions you make it look quite unbalanced in which parts of the rest of the article it summarizes. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments. Will consider them and, if it's ok with you, I will come back to you when my first draft is finished. -- Carlos Alegría (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

G.U.T.

With the present in order to denounce you about the deletion of the Law of the Universe for proved scare about the originality of formulation of the G.U.T. If you United States are not able to accept that other had formulized the Law. I'm sorry. Now listen to me. I had 9 legal causes in my life and do you know how many I've lost? 0. — Prenote • (talk) 03:53, 04 September 2017 (UTC+1)

Furthermore I have photos proving that a person who criticized the G.U.T. was behind a bot trying to figure that modifications were automatic. — Prenote • (talk) 04:37, 04 September 2017 (UTC+1)

Ok, I'm going to block you for making legal threats; see WP:LEGAL. You can get unblocked by apologizing for the threat and promising not to do it again (on your own talk page as you won't be able to edit anything else), but if you can't make yourself understood by writing in clear English you're not likely to last long here for other reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Algorithmic transparency

I see that back in February you were pinged from Draft:Algorithmic transparency, a topic which imho is worthy of an article. I'm tempted to start trying to improve it myself, but I believe you would do a better job. Maproom (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kawasaki's theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kawasaki's theorem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kawasaki's theorem

The article Kawasaki's theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kawasaki's theorem 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Susan Friedlander's Article

I have been observing that you are undoing my written article on Susan Friedlander on wikipedia. The content of the article is from Susan herself.

You had asked me about where her CV is. It is included in the article under references. Also, "La Retraite School for Girls" in London was the high school she attended and Susan does not want to include that on her CV.

You made a comment on 'citation to a reliable source', kindly guide me through it, so that I can retain the new Wiki page on Susan.

This is the new edited page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Friedlander&oldid=800163019 This is the old page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Friedlander

Regards, Shilpa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpasr (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you need to read WP:BLP and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. We cannot accept material here merely because it is purportedly from the subject. Everything needs to be supported by published reliable sources. If she does not want to include the high school in her CV, and it cannot be found in any other published source, it cannot be published here either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaussian integer

I am very sorry, but I don't understand for which reason you have undone my correction of D. Lazard's ongoing destructions on this page. I also don't understand your comment for it: 'belt and suspenders (both semi-open squares and a later definition of which to include) makes for unnecessary confusion; also, don't use first person).' Could you explain it to me, what that means? What means belt and suspenders, and where was used first person? --Wolfk.wk (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The part above what you added defined a partition of the plane into semi-open squares (with exactly one Gaussian integer per square). Then your text separately defined how to assign exactly one Gaussian integer per square, by specifying which corner to choose, and worded in such a way as to make it appear that it would be equally valid to choose any one of the four corners. Either of the two ways of assigning Gaussian integers to squares works, but specifying both in the same paragraph is a bad idea, because then we don't know which is the real definition and which is the consequence of the definition. Also, in your text, "we consider" is written in the first person, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Susan Friedlander's Article

I have removed the school information as it has not been included in the CV. This is the updated link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Friedlander&oldid=800829953 However, I want to change the picture on the page. I need help to upload the image. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpasr (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The main thing to be careful of is that you own the copyright of the image you upload (usually the copyright is owned by the photographer) and that you are willing to release it under a suitable open access license (typically, CC-BY-SA; it is not enough to give permission for use on Wikipedia, it has to be open for all uses including commercial ones). See Wikipedia:Uploading images for more. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Shilpasr: Did you read this? Because you posted an image on commons that claims to be authored by Friedlander when it is clearly not (she is the subject and does not appear to be taking a selfie) and is copied from a web site that claims an incompatible license. It seems headed for deletion unless you can somehow quickly convince the commons authorities (of which I am not one) that this really does have permission from the actual copyright owner (probably not Friedlander) to be released in this way. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I was not completely sure about how I was supposed to go about with the image file. However, I have other concerns now. Why did you remove the books/ edited volume section from the page? The books are on Susan's CV. And answering your question, I'm Susan's assistant and I'm editing this page as per her directions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpasr (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

(1) You should not be editing this article at her direction. That still falls under WP:AUTOBIO. Find something else on Wikipedia to edit, or make suggestions on the article talk page; do not edit the article itself.

(2) See WP:NOTCV. We should only be listing significant accomplishments, not every little detail that would be listed on a cv. Usually edited volumes don't count for much in academia. What makes these ones different?

—David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Please change Susan's current image and add this one.

Susan Friedlander at University of Southern California, 2015

. This is a request from Susan herself.

The license and image details are here: https://opc.mfo.de/detail?photo_id=20237

And I received permission from Oberwolfach to publish this. This is a message from them: 'If you wish to use this photo for any kind of publication, we kindly ask you to acknowledge the MFO with the following credit line: "Archives of the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach".'

Plimpton 322

As per advice when accused of bludgeoning I have placed a notice about this on the Administrators' notice board 'Plimpton 322 - accusation of bludgeoning.' 9and50swans (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the description of Mos Eisley, and dubious that this is the constructive employment of your energies that I suggested, but have fun there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Turán's brick factory problem

The article Turán's brick factory problem 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:Turán's brick factory problem for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vapors

Hi, not to drag a very minor thing out too much, but I'm not seeing "vapors" as a homonym to "vapers". I see on electronic cigarette and vaper that a vaper is a user of an electronic cigarette, but I do not see this same definition for vapor, vapors, vapour or vapours. What do you have to backup this claim? +mt 02:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I meant homonym in the sense of "homophone", not in the sense of different valid spellings for the same word; sorry for the confusion. But what is the justification for including two of the different same-pronounciation words "vapors" and "vapours" (with some shared meanings and some distinct) in Vapors (disambiguation) but not the third? It's not there as a misspelling of "vapor", but because it's one of three different correct ways of spelling the same sounds. But it's also true that I can find enough online sources that use the other spelling, "vapors", for the meaning "people who vape", to make it a valid minority spelling for that meaning. (E.g. Here's a reliable looking one that uses that spelling.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Vapid person

I always thought what you called "people who vape" was vapid. EEng 03:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what they become after they vape. It's all your fault, by the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose it can stay as a plausible homophone. But I bumped it into a "see also" section using a redirect I made last week. Hope that's alright. +mt 03:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Plimpton 322

If you are an administrator it should say so on your talk page. If you are then it seems strange to me that you are able to threaten adminstrative sanctions relating to a page in which you are heavily involved in editing, that looks like a conflict of interest to me. It might be better left to an uninvolved adminstrator. Those who are removing the neutrality template are breaking guidelines by doing so. 9and50swans (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly not block you myself — as you say I am too involved for that — but anyone can leave a warning, or report others for edit warring. By doing so I am not invoking my administrative powers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It certainly seemed like it on my talk page. 9and50swans (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

{(talk page stalker) Leaving a standard edit warring warning template on your page is not an administrative action. Meters (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Anette Hosoi

On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anette Hosoi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anette Hosoi designed a robot snail that moved by rippling over artificial snail slime? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anette Hosoi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anette Hosoi), 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Turán's brick factory problem

Hello! Your submission of Turán's brick factory problem 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)