User talk:David Eppstein/2017d

SCIRP journals

I don't see how adding a list of journals which are published under SCIRP violates any copyright. We need to have all these journals properly described and evaluated by the community; the reason I started adding them was to ensure that the people know their "heroes". Метамерік (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Turán's brick factory problem

On 7 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Turán's brick factory problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Pál Turán was forced to work in a brick factory during World War II, the bumpy crossings of the cart tracks inspired him to ask how to draw graphs with few crossings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Turán's brick factory problem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Turán's brick factory problem), 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) 03:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Lea Thau

What 13 sources do you deem acceptable? By my reading, seven of the eighteen references are to unreliable sources like Refinery 29 or blogs, five of them cannot assist notability because they're not independent of her, one is a Q&A interview that cannot assist notability because she's talking about herself rather than being independently analyzed in the third person by other people, one is not a media outlet at all, and two are mere glancing namechecks of her existence in listicles that aren't about her. Leaving us with just the New York Times citations for acceptable sourcing — we're not after "any source that can be found at all to verify the content, but only certain specific types of sourcing that most of the citations in the article aren't. I'll grant that I was wrong to say 17 instead of 16, but there are just two acceptable and notability-assisting sources in the article, not 13 of them. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References on articles (and tags about those references) are not supposed to be about assisting notability, they are supposed to be about providing verifiability. So minor web-magazines like Refinery29 are fine as long as they provide enough editorial control (not just a single-person project) to meet WP:RS. Same goes for MPR, Gothamist, Murmur, the Harvard Nieman Foundation, Rumpus, Good, etc. What is not acceptable are personal blogs (for anything) or sources controlled by the subject (for anything beyond basic factual information). That leaves only the Radiotopia, Story Central, and Earwolf sites as dubious. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References most certainly are supposed to be about supporting notability — as I've had to point out far too often in AFD discussions, if all a source had to do was verify the accuracy of a Wikipedia article's content, and didn't have to be measured against notability standard, then we would have to keep an article about my parents' neighbour who got media coverage a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard. So no, an article is not acceptably sourced, and has not passed WP:GNG, just because there are two New York Times citations present, thus giving you the freedom to lean on unreliable or non-independent or primary sources otherwise — we're allowed to use primary sources for basic biographical information that doesn't impact notability, such as a person's birthdate or where they went to high school, but every single comma that impacts on her notability or lack thereof has to be referenced to solid, reliable and fully independent sources: a standard that the two New York Times cites are the only ones in the entire article that meet. And an independent source can't just be not personally controlled by her, either — it can't be controlled by her or by any other person or organization that she has any form of direct personal or professional relationship with either. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References in articles are primarily about verification. Some of them should support some argument for notability, but it is entirely acceptable for many of them not to. References in AfDs are another story, but you're not arguing about an AfD. In AfDs, in particular in discussions about GNG, most editors care about the significance of a source (as an indirect measure for how famous the subject is) much more than the reliability of the source (how much of a reputation do they have for careful vs sloppy editing), despite what GNG may actually say, but in the articles themselves this is irrelevant. In this particular case, the main claim for notability is the Peabody Award, not the significance of the sources about her. The award itself should be better sourced than it is, and was to The Moth not her individually, but I don't think there should be any doubt that it won [1]. There's a case that the notability is dubious by being inherited, but your indiscriminate tag spree doesn't help make that case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources in an article and the sources in an AFD discussion are not two different sets of things — the AFD discussion is about the quality of sources that do or don't exist to support the article, not some separate unrelated matter that's irrelevant to what sources cut any mustard in the article. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as a notability claim that doesn't have to be supported by any significant coverage in reliable sources, but instead can be carried by mere verifiability in weak or unreliable or non-independent sources: the breadth and depth of reliable source coverage available about a person is how we measure whether the person is notable enough to have an article at all. "AFD standard" and "article standard" are not two distinct classes of source evaluation — they're the same standard, and the bulk of the sources in an article have to pass that standard with the lesser kind confined to the minority. And there's nothing "indiscriminate" about tagging an article for a maintenance problem — if 16 of an article's 18 sources are unreliable and/or non-independent and not aiding notability, then that is a problem that requires attention and it's not ignorable just because the other two sources are acceptable. The balance between notability-supporting reliable sources and extra-verifiability-in-primary-sources has to be much closer to 16-2 the other way for an article's sourcing to be deemed acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No. That is bullshit. All that is required is a sufficient number of notability-supporting sources (which could easily be as few as 2) and that the remaining sources are adequately reliable for the content they support. There is nothing anywhere in any Wikipedia policy or guideline about having a high ratio of sources in major media or other such notability-supporting sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

DE's right. Any argument hinging on a ratio of varieties of sources cannot possibly be valid. EEng 23:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Expertise needed

Is this Headless_CMS a keeper? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Like many current tech topics, the sources are currently of dubious quality — mostly tech web sites rather than books or scholarly publications. But there are a lot of them. So probably it's a notable topic. But I'm not sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thx, David. Well, it's Saturday and time to have a little fun:

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner and bottle of wine, they retire for the night and go to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend.

“Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes,” replies Watson.

“And what do you deduce from that?”

Watson ponders for a minute. “Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?”

Holmes is silent for a moment. “Watson, you idiot!” he says. “Someone has stolen our tent!”

^{Atsme📞📧} 21:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Aequationes Mathematicae

Nice job. Very thorough job.--Toploftical (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Dewey Readmore Books

My apologies- I was trying to add my comments to the Talk page of the main article Dewey Readmore Books and did not realize I was on the GA Review page. Got interrupted before I could get back and move the comments to the right place.Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Böttcher's equation

Hi, Thx for your edits. Can you add moer about computing Bottcher function ? Here are some links :

• http://math-functions-1.watson.jp/sub4_math_020.html (It is in Japan but you can translate it. It works fine )
• http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/MandelbrotSetBoettcher.html

TIA. --Adam majewski (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability opinions, please

Before I take it to AfD, your and Tryptofish's opinions, please: Jonny_Kim. EEng 19:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to whether or not astronaut candidates are considered notable here, prior to actually having flown. I'm not sure what the precedent has been. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonny Kim happened quite recently, so I think that you would probably want a new reason for deletion. Alternatively, maybe it's a candidate for WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the only relevant notability guideline is WP:GNG, and for that I'd like to see published sources about Kim from someone other than NASA. Without such sources, I'd support an AfD. The previous one had both procedural problems (too many nominated at once) and a lot of smoke over bogus inherent notability claims, so I don't think its outcome should be considered as precedent to prevent a new AfD from happening. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I somehow didn't see the earlier AfD. I agree with DE re smoke. Tfish, where do you see COI? (The article certainly has that smell.) EEng 20:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

At the top of the page, the template there. (Are you having trouble seeing? ) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Low blood sugarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. EEng 00:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Do have some pancakes, then. (Sorry, I know that's a low blow, but that set-up was just too easy!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Random question

If WP:SPAPARTY is created, where do you think should it point? I'm torn between Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It takes more than one to have a party, so I'd lean towards the meatpuppet link. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: les noix

And I worked so hard on polishing my post! (replying here in case someone is old enough to figure it out at EEng's tp). It turns out the Internet is no help on this. Way back, when I was in college in Pasadena (60s), the canard about California was "they tilted the country and all the nuts rolled to California. The reversal for LA was "they tilted California and all the nuts rolled to Orange County." (see Orange Curtain)

Les noisettes in Los Angeles County could be almond trees, but they might not grow that far South (nor in the Bay Area either—last I lived there (mid-80s) almond groves were being uprooted for real estate development with the trees sold for firewood.

It's the unwitting humor on EEng's tp contributed by the OC variety that sparked my post. And now I've explained away my intended wit. — (Phil) 12:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Those are really old stereotypes. OC has long since become too expensive for the fruits and nuts. Nowadays it's populated more by rich old people (on the coast), hardworking immigrants (inland), and a fading cadre of aging surfers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

P versus NP problem

I don't know who you think you are, reverting my clearly described edits without explaining why. Don't do it again. What reason could you possibly have for removing an expansion of an acronym? I see no possibility that you thought this would improve the article, and therefore you are vandalising. 82.13.108.84 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to P versus NP problem went well beyond expanding an acronym, and also included removing two useful templates (the unsolved and Millenium Prize ones), removing the technical details that changed the first sentence from informal to wrong, removing the warnings to the reader about the difference between being informal and wrong, removing the correct statement that this is the biggest open problem in TCS, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

But we still don't know who you think you are. EEng 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A hardworking immigrant, obviously, if you look one thread up. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ventus again

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ventus again. Your help in evaluation of the notability of the long list of subjects would be earnestly appreciated:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Jurors and promotion for the upcoming wiki science competition

Hi. I can see from the information on your profile that you work in the academia. Actually, I wish I has seen this profile before.

Have you seen any of my message here or on commons or wikiversity about the upcoming WSC 2017?

I am looking for active wikimedia users with academic background and some bibliometric record (so I can prepare or use their wikidata items) to work as jurors. Originally I looked for people from countries without a national jury but I can't find even a Canadian and I have a surplus of researcher in the life science field. So now I am targeting also common users that showed some interest in graphics. And I don't have any mathematicians or statician yet.

I don't know what's the status of the USA committe and its selection, so you can contact them as well if you are interested. I am sorry that we basically completed the final jury and if you are interested to join at that level, I can only offer you a place in the second-level jury. Would you be interested in any case?

The jurors are not supposed to be all wikimedians, but we wish to promote the use of the images on the platforms and show that there is a continuum between the wiki-world and the academia. At the same time, I want all the jurors to show they are involved in the peer-reviewed process, so the uploaders can see they are students and researchers like them.

Let me know. The event starts on 01/11/2017 or maybe two weeks later. We can define the last details of the jury during the month of November, but we'd like to be almost ready in two weeks, in order to provide the challengers with a rough idea of the composition of the juries. Jurors work after the competition.

In any case, we can contact you next time if you are still interested but you can't join this time.

Also if you can spread the news around in your working environment, that would be great!

Regards.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm too busy to make that sort of commitment at this point, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Request

I noticed your comment here. As you'll be aware, such allegations are not permitted unless they can be evidenced. I therefore request that within the next 24 hours you either add diffs to substantiate your comment, or strike it. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I request that you kindly read what I wrote and take it to heart rather than continuing the exact behavior that has gotten you into trouble. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This is not "bullying" -- this is a simple policy-based request so that the rest of us have any chance of giving a fair opinion. David Eppstein, I suggest you mount any concerns in a fresh thread and provide sufficient diffs to enable the community to evaluate your concerns about John. I have no opinion as to this matter, but unsupported aspersions don't move things forward. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know I'm not in any trouble. In the absence of any evidence that I have done something wrong, I will continue to believe that I have done nothing wrong. Anyway, I'll let you get on with collecting your evidence. 23 h 53 mins. --John (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• It appears David Eppstein, like Dingley, has jumped on for the ride at ANI. You, David, appear not to accept other people's opinions too easily, which is a shame. Why don't you go and do something else? Cassianto^Talk 20:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Preferably not trying to collect diffs on John for doing the right thing and giving a preventive block to S+P. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Whee, the gang's all here I see. I look forward to seeing what you intend to do in less than 24 hours when I fail to obey your not-very-polite demands. I know I wrote on ANI that "This has not yet risen to the level of an ARBCOM de-sysop case" but you're entirely capable of accelerating the matter if that's what you choose to do. But I would prefer to be proven wrong and see you become a more constructive member of the Wikipedia and Wikipedia-admin-communities, as I have repeatedly suggested; your chance to do so has not yet evaporated. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. So, to recap, you made some baseless accusations about me in a public forum, you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, and you now state that you do not intend to do so, is that right? --John (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mercy, Eppstein. That sounds like a threat. Oh dear! SPECIFICO talk 00:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not at all. It is a prediction, of something I was hoping to head off in all my comments so far by persuading someone here to change their poor behavior. It is still possible for this change to happen. The key difference between this and a threat is that, if nothing more happens beyond the bullying clearly visible above, I intend to let this incident drop completely. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Which I too am perfectly happy to do, right after you either substantiate your allegation or strike it. --John (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I did substantiate my accusation, with a diff, as soon as you requested it, and you have been only too happy to provide additional evidence. Since gentle admonishment does not seem to be working, let me warn you more directly: Taking any action against an administrator (me), especially one who (like me) has been gently admonishing you to reform your poor behavior, is likely to backfire on you. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Very funny. You claim to be a professor so I know you are unlikely to actually be this stupid. If or when you are sanctioned for failing to meet WP:ADMINACCT it will not be me who enacts it, and warning the complainant is not a remedy for a complaint. This is the last time I will raise it with you at your talk, so it's likely your last chance to sort it out before it gets escalated. To recap, then, when at 19:26, 21 October 2017 you said: a trout to John for the clearly-bad block, part of a long-term pattern of bullying and bad blocks, what were you basing this on? The evidence cannot logically be a diff that took place after that time, can it? An unevidenced allegation is just trolling, and you would not be the first admin to lose their tools over it. Think hard before you decide how to handle this. I won't be posting here on this matter again. --John (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I was basing it on the evidence that had already been presented in that thread, and on your earlier behavior such as your poor block in May 2017 of EEng in response to his disagreement with you on a different ANI thread. You know, normal admins place warnings telling people *not* to do things that are harmful to the encyclopedia, and then follow up with blocks that stop them from continuing to do things. You instead (as evidenced here) seem to prefer to demand that people do things that are irrelevant to the normal functioning of the encyclopedia (bow down before your authority), and then follow up with blocks (or in this case, apparently, threats of raising ADMINACCT somewhere?) that punish them when they don't do those things to your satisfaction. As an administrator, I have the perfect right to contribute to ANI threads with my opinion on the behavior of the involved parties of the thread, and there is no requirement for me to do anything more to substantiate my opinion. If I had actually taken administrative action, you would be within your rights per ADMINACCT to request me to explain myself further, and I have done so despite not being required to. But I repeat, again, that I have a poor opinion of your behavior as an administrator, that it is my right to hold and express that poor opinion, and that if you take action (including raising ADMINACCT at any higher level) my belief is that the likely outcome is a WP:BOOMERANG back to you. As for "claim to be" and "stupid" — you shouldn't need this reminder, but please see WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Eppstein, I am stunned to learn that you, flouting Arbcom rulings on WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NEWBLPBAN are an Admin. I don't see any impartial observer disagreeing with what @John: has said here. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Rather than vague aspersions, please point to anything specific I have done that is counter to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Because you appear to be doing your best to substantiate Dingley's description of you (on ANI) as the bully's hanger-on. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Diff please? SPECIFICO talk 17:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's still live on the page for anyone to read, and you should be as capable as I of doing a text search in the recent history. But here you go. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Fails verification. If you should be mooted for de-sysop, this will be another nail in your coffin. SPECIFICO talk 17:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Which one fails verification, that Dingley wrote that or that my perception from your comments here is that you are living down to what he wrote? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• "You claim to be a professor" -- is this intentionally humorous or is there something bizarre happening here? I claim to be a PhD student in Manchester, not that I expect to have to prove it. But suggesting that David is someone other than who he thinks he is, pushes us into Alice in Wonderland territory. Where do these weird WP:BOISE people come from? MPS1992 (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Phew, this is fun, a bunch of good editors duking it out. David, I'm sorry, but I agree with John--you just can't make such sweeping generalizations in such a forum, and if you want to base that on two blocks (is that what it is?), well, you can't: anyone who knows the problems with inductive reasoning understands that. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well, one can rather imagine David is waiting for an apology here. It seems unlikely that he will get one, so, what to do? What to do? MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What to do: Be sad that John hasn't apologized for his incivility. I'm certainly not going to impose a 24-hour deadline for an apology and then block him when it doesn't happen. For one thing, an apology can't be sincere when it's forced. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • So you made a statement about me that you were unable to justify, and now you think I should apologise? I had assumed that the experience of having gained no traction with your lazy misstatements at the discussion would have been a potential learning experience for you. Being caught out like that in public with a behaviour that has got someone deadminned recently; if that were me it would be a time for reflection, not one of demanding apologies. What would I be apologising for? Saying that you "claim" to be a professor? The context of my saying that was your citing of an event that occurred after your allegation, in support of that allegation. As Drmies (who also "claims" to be a professor) says above, that violates the basic structure of logic. Making such a statement is neither professorial nor admin-like. I merely "claim" to be a high-school teacher, but I don't need a degree to see that an argument like that discredits the arguer. Nevertheless I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by questioning your credentials if they're important to you. Even very clever people can have a brain-fart from time to time. I agree with you that a forced apology is no apology at all, but if you were to be a bit more careful about checking your facts the next time you're on AN/I, that would be apology enough for me. --John (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Non-apology and continued threats noted. Don't worry, my feelings were not hurt. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Good, neither were mine. One more thing then I'll leave you in peace; I'm glad you brought it up. You should be careful about conflating reasonable questioning with "threats"; the former is clearly encouraged in an intellectual space like this one, and the latter are not permitted. I'd challenge you to find anything resembling a "threat" to any reasonable person, and I know, like last time, you would not be able to come up with any. If one ever gets to a stage when one can't tell the difference, that would be a terrible thing. --John (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Reasonable questioning would not use the word "deadminning", and for that matter would not need to irrelevantly bring up the fate of Rubin a second time (the first being your mention of sanctions for ADMINACCT in an earlier comment). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
          • It occurs to me that you probably intended "de-adminning", while what I actually read in what you wrote was "dead-minning", much more insulting (towards Rubin, not me). An unfortunate coincidence of orthography. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK... oh, that was many hours ago, right? I was hoping for a little more drama. You have all disappointed me. Perhaps we should all go back to editing Wikipedia articles. MPS1992 (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The subject of the ANI thread doesn't seem to know when to shut up, so you may get your wish for more drama anyway. Although, now that it's closed, there's less ground for him to dig holes in. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Closing a thread does not suppress the bully agenda, they have to alter the thread's contents as well. And now they have turned up at my talk page too. I can't imagine who they will find to bully there. A sadly unfortunate sally. I am able to let it go :) MPS1992 (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request

Thanks for all your wonderful articles on women statisticians. It's so good to see the visibility of people in this sector increased. Just one request-is there any chance you could put an authority control statement in your new page template? I'm working on adding VIAF and other publication IDs to people in this sector and others I'm interested in, and having that tag already in place on pages would save time with updating everything. Blythwood (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't actually been using a template, really, but I can try to remember to include authcon in my new biographical articles. I have already been including authcon for articles that I know to have wikidata entries already, but otherwise it hasn't seemed important to me as it adds nothing visible to the article until that entry is created. I assume you would find them helpful more generally, not just for the women statisticians. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. I think it makes sense these days for anyone who has a publication record, certainly. Blythwood (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

why do you want n=1 on the Fermat's Last Theorem page?

I mean, I understand why you might state a theorem such that the trivial case was included, but stating that people knew something about the case n=1 is just weird. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it sounds weird and wrong to write that the case n=2 has infinitely many solutions as if that's the only one that does, when in fact also n=1 does. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Although this does cause me to think some more: we also don't mention in the lead that n=–1 has infinitely many solutions (e.g. 1/123 + 1/15006 = 1/122), also more or less trivial. And while the ancients certainly would have known that n=1 has infinitely many solutions if they'd stopped to ask that question, did they ask that question? So you may have been right in taking it out. If you want to do it again I won't revert a second time. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of delta edit

Hi there, you reverted my recent good natured edit. I had no idea what the variable meant so I looked it up. Finding it had its own page, I figured the first instance was worth linking. Your edit description described it as "just a variable" but actually delta means difference and this is unclear to non maths nerds, so the link has utility. prat (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

In this particular instance, there would be no difference in meaning if we changed the delta to a, x, q, or any other variable. The meaning of delta as a difference is not very relevant. The correct link would be Variable (mathematics) but if you need to rely on that link to understand the article then there are bigger gaps in your mathematical literacy than can be patched over by a wikilink. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, David, and welcome to WiR. I'm glad to see you've finally joined up after creating so many biographies of women associated one way or another with mathematics. I've just come across this list of Biographies of Women Mathematicians. I see most of them are already on Wikipedia but you might like to cover some of those who are not or who have problems with redirects. I'm sure an old hand like you will be able to contribute lots to our project but if you ever need any assistance, just let me know or drop a message on our WiR talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I still have plenty to go on the list I'm currently working through but I'll keep that one in mind for more names. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow...but you probably knew this...

Today if you add your age + year of your birth you will get 2017 - it only happens once in 1000th years!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh, all true. Even more amazing: if you do it next year it will again add up to the number of the year. What are the odds of it happening twice in a row like that? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, there's a good joke/lesson in probability in there somewhere (akin to Feynman and the license plate), but I'm having trouble with the "once in 1000th years" bit. Any thoughts on how to fix that? EEng 11:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's circulating on FB - astro numerologist Sanjay B Jumaani - - but he ruins the punchline by explaining it's simple math. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

^{Why no WP article on "astro numerology"? Atsme📞📧 14:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)}

The Ouigi board provides answers.

I thought maybe I could find an answer to EEng's question so I broke out the ouiji board and channeled Yogi Berra. The planchette spelled out The future ain’t what it used to be. Then I called the spirit of Feynman using the power of intention (since I don't have his phone #), and asked him about his license plate comment. The planchette spelled out I never said most of the things I said. Yogi again - couldn't get rid of him. The planchette moved on its own and spelled out It ain't over till it's over. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, and everyone knows that Facebook is a completely reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into whether Putin instigated this? --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was another revelation in Donna Brazile's new book. All the math stuff came into play because of the vote count during the primaries and general election. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no escape from the mob. EEng 19:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara Everitt Bryant

On 3 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara Everitt Bryant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara Everitt Bryant was the first woman to direct the United States Census Bureau? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Everitt Bryant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara Everitt Bryant), 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) 00:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_pioneers_in_computer_science . Zazpot (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for YBC 7289

On 11 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article YBC 7289, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the sexagesimal approximation to the square root of 2 used by Babylonian tablet YBC 7289 appeared again much later in Ptolemy's Almagest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/YBC 7289. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, YBC 7289), 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) 00:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.134.67.50 (talk • contribs)

Context: This is about the IP editor's repeated whitewashing of academic misconduct claims from Mikhail Blagosklonny and Oncotarget. More eyes welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

One thing SPAs never seem to catch on to is that by leaving these warnings on experienced editors' talk pages, they're just attracting the attention of yet more experienced editors, dooming their crusade. EEng 19:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey, David - this should end it, no? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. But it doesn't include the part about Blagosklonny larding up other authors' papers in his journal with citations to his own papers. It does, however, include another disputed aspect, that he threatened Beall's colleagues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"[T]hey're just attracting the attention of yet more experienced editors, dooming their crusade." By reporting their zealotry to an admin noticeboard? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

40.134.67.50 moved to Kansas? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A quiet chat, please

Could you have a little chat with User:Zazpot? He's removed certain posts of mine over and over; after several rounds of restoring my posts manually, I finally told him [2] that in future I'd simply roll back his changes to just before the point of removal. He's still at it today. [3]. EEng 21:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Templated, but I'm skeptical whether that will make much difference. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I have great faith in the potential for redemption. EEng 21:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Barbara A. Bailar

On 14 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Barbara A. Bailar, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Barbara A. Bailar resigned from the United States Census Bureau in 1988 to protest a decision not to adjust the 1990 results for systematic undercounting of minorities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara A. Bailar. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Barbara A. Bailar), 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) 00:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Bleeding Heartland Roller Derby

Hi, and thank you for the revdel on Bleeding Heartland Roller Derby. Earlier this year, similar edits were made to this article, not sure if they should be revdel'd as well, here: [4] and here: [5]. (There was at least one other one that listed the organization as "soon to be defunct" without the additional content about the allegations.) I suspect, given the nature of the allegations, that after the protection passes they may happen again. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Verdu's Bio

Hi, Prof. Eppstein.

I don't agree with the edits made to the Sergio Verdu's biography. Can you tell me the rationale behind, 1) Adding an incident of this sort, to his biography page, with almost full detail (in particular, there are sentences saying that there were multiple women accusing Prof. Verdu of such things, none came front to take this seriously. If this is the case, and no investigation was made, isn't this biasing the people towards him in a strongly unfair way? People are innocent, unless proven otherwise, and adding such things is just piling up the bad ideas towards him in people's mind) 2) Conditioned on the fact that incident will stay, it coming after the prizes? You've defended your action via saying putting prizes first is unfair, and giving people a wrong perception. Is this your alternative? You are also biasing the people in the exact opposite way, aren't you?

In particular, media is quite messed the things up.. You can read her saying that, `our relationship was professional after the discussion, as expected'. Plus, people saying she lost her motivation was also, in my view, a problematic argument. You can see that she has published a long paper (exists on arXiv) and given that she published on second year, she is working on Info theory (which requires too much maturity, and often people do not publish earlier), I do think that there is something deeper, maybe an academic clash towards Prof. Verdu, whom used this as an opportunity to punish him. To me it seems, it is almost not the case of losing motivation here. She keeps working with him, publishes, everything is ok, and all of a sudden, she changes her mind, speaks against him and says I've entered into depression. Honestly, there is something off in this argument.

The last paragraph above, is my own view, you can completely ignore it. But I'm still not convinced with your rationale. Would be happy to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.189.82.52 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your sentence "media is quite messed the things up" repeated in one of your edit summaries makes me think you are editing from a position of personal knowledge of some of these events rather than working purely from reliable sources. That is not the Wikipedia way. See WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTOBIO. We can only report what published sources tell us. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't deny that I'm not happy with how media reports the issue, but you have still not responded for your rationale behind the action. None of my edits really made changes to the article's content, as opposed to what you have said above. But I still don't see your point, unfortunately.

My rationale is that these events made the newspapers (unlike anything else about Verdu) and therefore should not be covered up or whitewashed out of his article. And your claim "None of my edits really made changes" is false. They included two edits where you removed this material from the article completely, and many more where someone geolocated to the same place as you and using the same phrasing in edit summaries as you reduced its length and buried it at the bottom of the article under a long list of awards. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

PP

Hey, David - can you fully PP Pardon of Joe Arpaio? We've been having a serious issue with a sock master over there, and he's even been to ANI a couple of times. Now he's back, and I think it's this guy who signed up this evening, and the first article he edited is this one] He talks and acts like the sock, only a bit calmer, but he's still targeting me and stirring things up. Tony B. and The Bushranger have been working on this all night but he keeps coming back. Once they get him banned from the project the PP can come off. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

But he hasn't touched the article yet, just the talk page, and the article is already semiprotected until Monday — is he already autoconfirmed? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

He's been to AfD - working like a little rabbit to hide his ID. Now he's calling Oshwah doing what he's been doing all along. I'm pretty damn sure he's the sock master, David. He's horrible!! They've blocked 4 or 5 accts. on him tonight, one right after another. This last one took him a bit longer to get. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I believe you, I just don't understand what a short-term full protection is going to change compared to the short-term semiprotection it already has. The new socks can't become autoconfirmed for four days, longer than the current semiprotection will last. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

He's wiser now after 5 or 6 blocks. Oshwah inadvertently helped him in the beginning which is what emboldened him right at the start. He's slamming me with PAs at the TP now. Bushranger says he needs a solid second opinion before he can block. Malcolmxl5 gave him an IP range block, but he always manages to get through. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "slam" you with any personal attacks. I calmly tried to explain that you appear to have misunderstood what the topic is about, and asked you to read some of the references prior to deleting more than 50 percent of the article. David, don't you think it's problematic that she deleted well over half the article, when there is overwhelming consensus against her deletion of the article, both in the talk page, and at the deletion discussion? This editor is trying to subvert the strong consensus to not delete the article, by deleting most of it anyway, based on her opinions. She hasn't cited any sources that support her views in the discussion I tried to engage her in on the talk page. I tried to explain to her that are something called experts in law (generally, law professors), and that, as an encyclopedia, we should take their opinions seriously when writing an article on a legal topic, and their views count for more than an editor's unreferenced opinions about legal matters, but she seems not to be hearing me. I'd ask that you please restore the half of the article that was deleted by her without getting a consensus (or even a single other editor who supported her position). I'm sorry to be blunt, but zero of her contributions improved the article. I think they could reasonably be characterized as vandalism, as they were the removal of sourced content without logical explanation. The Tortfeasor (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh joy, he's here. Anyway, I'll be happy to block if the semiprotection shows signs of not being strong enough to hold him out. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

,,,which it now has. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't you make the protection only extended confirmed? As far as I know he doesn't currently have any extended confirmed socks, and it'd take him longer than the block is active to get that. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 16:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's the game, not the fame.

Sure, we can try that. Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

As you say, "Oh joy". The sock is back; just giving you a heads-up. I made the mistake of expecting collaborative input at BLP/N regarding the same controversial article. Those types of articles appear to provoke a very tendentious side of some editors. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw that Oshwah blocked a couple more last night, if that's what you mean. It's a bit like whack-a-mole. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe Bushranger took the day off, or he's on a different time zone? The sock farm has now grown to include:

• 63.143.240.94
• 2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66
• 2600:1017:B42E:45B4:B4B3:C34B:1771:55A1
• 75.99.95.250

We also need protection on the Talk:Pardon of Joe Arpaio Can you help? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah is on to the new socks. As for protecting the talk page, WP:PP says "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism." Although it is proper for the sock's talk page additions to be reverted as disruptive, they take the form of discussions of article content, so it is difficult to argue that they are severe vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Do PAs count? The sock is wreaking havoc all over WP, and disparaging me for no reason. He does the same to admins. What are our options? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Continue applying WP:DENY, I think. The IPs are too dynamic for range protection of their addresses to do much good. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And it suggests WP:Don't stuff beans up your nose which reminded me of this. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies Regarding WP:PORTRAIT

Dear David Eppstein, I sincerely apologize for violating WP:PORTRAIT on the article "Fibonacci". I did not know that policy existed. Please forgive me, and I hope I'll do better next time.

Sincerely, Vincentupsdellred — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentupsdellred (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No harm done, I just get exasperated when the same edit keeps coming back repeatedly (as this one does). —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Amy H. Herring

On 20 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amy H. Herring, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Amy H. Herring led a study whose data showed many American women were reportedly virgins at the birth of their first child? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amy H. Herring. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amy H. Herring), 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) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Date formats

Regarding your revert, may I point out that it says in MOS:DATEUNIFY that "publication dates in an article's citations should all use the same format"? There was a mixture of mdy and yyyy-mm-dd, hence my attempt of setting all to mdy. I don't really mind which way things get adjusted, but note that the article doesn't align with your revert rationale. Schwede66 05:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Publication dates and access dates are two different things. The publication dates in that article are mdy; the access dates are yyyy-mm-dd. See the example in MOS:DATEUNIFY of "Jones, J. (20 September 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05." as one of the acceptable formats. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent women's biographies

Hi there, David. Since you joined WiR at the end of October, I see you have created well over 60 interesting biographies on women mathematicians, scientists, and academics. Even if you don't want to compete officially, I was wondering whether you would like to add them to the World Contest page under "Article achievements" as it seems to me that this is an important contribution and it would be interesting to add the appropriate national flags. If you wish, you could also tag the talk pages with the template {{WIR-60}}. Thanks also for adding several to DYK. All these biographies will, of course, be taken into account in our statistics and should all appear on our Metrics page. Keep up the good work. It's greatly appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd rather focus on creating articles than on collecting statistics and winning prizes for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

So you can continue to create the articles and I'll take care of the statistics. You are certainly helping enormously with the WiR project.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, do include them in the stats. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ipigott: I just wanted to let you know that, because of Dr. Blofeld's insistence that contest entries obey an artificial standard of date format consistency that contradicts both Help:Citation Style 1 and the consistent date format that I have been using, I have pulled all my contest entries. So thanks for all your work listing these, but please stop adding them to the contest list. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm really so sorry, David, that I have caused you so much trouble and frustration. I should never have started adding your articles to the contest list. I fully accept your explanations about date formats and cannot understand why the bot was not able to cope. I sincerely hope this has not diminished your enthusiasm for further coverage of women mathematicians. You have already made an enormous contribution. I've been looking quite carefully at your articles, all of a very high informative standard.--Ipigott (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

CSD

I came across several TP's of socks that apparently created the pages because they're obviously pissed about something Oshwah did - I G3 tagged a couple which were apparently created by socks. Is the procedure to delete them per G3 or are they left in place? They're inappropriately named, like User talk:OshwahTheRat, and more. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Pages with names like that can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G10. You can use {{db-g10}} to tag them for deletion. On the other hand, the content there currently is innocuous enough (a notice that the user has been blocked as a sockpuppet) that there's probably no point in deleting it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha - they're innocuoulated enough to be safe from sockenitus. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sexy Trash article deletion

Hi David. I see that you deleted the article for Electric Six compilation album Sexy Trash.

I agree that it probably isn't noteable enough to justify having a page of its own, but I'd like to add the content of that page as a sub-heading on the article for Flashy. Just to bring you up to speed, Sexy Trash was an album that the band produced and sold at live shows on their Flashy tie-in promotional tour. It was basically conceived and produced to be a promo item for Flashy.

Is it possible for me to get hold of the content of that article so that I can add it? I'm not sure if this would require the article to be undeleted and, then, re-deleted following a copy and paste job or if there's an easier way of handling it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega cyber turnip (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done It's now on User:Omega cyber turnip/Sexy Trash. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega cyber turnip (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Joceline Lega

Hi, I'm Graeme Bartlett. David Eppstein, thanks for creating Joceline Lega!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Independent references are needed to prove notability. Pages written by the subject, or organisations whe belongs to are not independent.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Before you template the regulars, perhaps you should read the guidelines yourself. Independent sources are not needed to prove notability; for academics, we have different criteria in WP:PROF, one of which is that the subject is a fellow of a scholarly society. Additionally, the reference in the Lega article stating that she is a fellow is independent of her. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

We need at least two independent references to show notability. There is only one reference to show she is a fellow. Being fellow of a scholarly society avoids getting nominated for deletion though! There probably do exist more cases where others have referenced her publications, hopefully reviewed them or where people have written about her. The teahouse invitation was a bit over the top though! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are referring to a different guideline, WP:GNG, which is not the one we use for academic notability. Our guideline for academic notability, WP:PROF, is at the same level as GNG, and is the one you should be referring to. It says nothing about "at least two independent references". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Graeme Bartlett, unlike in many other SNGs, in NPROF a person is notable if they meet any of the criteria, not may be notable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case she meets three (one of them twice over): highly cited publications, two society fellowships, and editor-in-chief of a major journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too. She's obviously notable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

A US holiday greeting!

Want more yams? No thanks, I'm stuffed.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” Atsme📞📧 02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't promise to take a holiday from Wikipedia editing, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I'm planning to sneak in my iPad, hopefully undetected, unless the kids have a CT scanner setup at the door. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Statisticians

I see that you are in the process of creating biographies of Women Statisticians. However in my POV such useless biographical information such as who studied in which university under whom with a templated selected publications section is of little use to our readers. Readers can get such information from the CV of any professor. Rather in my POV we should try to complement the Mathematics Genealogy Project. From MGP everyone can get a detailed list of students and descendants in chronological order. However MGP can't tell you formation of distinct schools in Mathematics Professions just as it can't tell you the insider politics of the Advisor-students-descendants clan. To cite a few examples:

• The MGP id of Harold Davenport can't tell you the insider politics of his two best students Alan Baker and John Horton Conway.
• The MGP id of Grothendieck can't tell you that his central disciple is Pierre Deligne just as it can't tell you that Grothendieck surpassed his both advisors in terms of mathematical achievement.
• Only our Wikiquote article on Harvard can tell you that "Together, Tate and Mazur formed the nucleus of a robust number theory group" there and that Gross (Tate's student) and Mazur's student Noam Elkies is "unlike anyone they've ever had".

Now each of the three examples mentioned above related to Wikiquote is created by me. However I am not very familiar with the Internet nachlass related to Statisticians to create similar Wikiquote pages as I have done for mathematicians. Just some food for your thought. Solomon7968 04:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

For most of the ones I have added it takes some effort to find the MGP-like information. Only the more mathematical side of statistics is listed in MGP, and even then some are missing. And CVs are also not always easy to obtain. For a lot of them, just finding out what name to look up to find out which school they went to is not easy — especially for the older ones, it is usually under their maiden names, which one can only guess once one has done enough searching to find the full married name with maiden name as new middle name. Now that we have an article, that effort is saved for others, because the article lists the earlier names. So I dispute that this information lacks value or is easily found through other means. As for your supposed replacement, of inside-story details such as Davenport's or Grothendieck's best students, without reliable sources that tell us those things we can't say them; it would be original research.

Your quote on Elkies is almost completely content-free, by the way. It may be fine for wikiquote but here it would be a violation of WP:PEACOCK. It says nothing about Elkies actual accomplishments, only that whoever said it is somehow impressed. And your focus in the other snippets you shared on trying to place these people onto some nonexistent linear scale of greatness just comes off as misguided to me.

In any case, by pushing for this sort of story you're also unintentionally reinforcing the old boy's club aspect of mathematical stature; see [6] for the other side of the coin, what the old boys club can be like to those who are not old boys. But if you're looking for longer story-like articles among my recent series of statistician article-creations, you could take a look at Dorothy M. Gilford, Juliet Popper Shaffer, or Esther Seiden. The rest are shorter not because I want them to be shorter but because I haven't found the sources to make them more in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, your comment caused me to look at your most recent article creations: Silvan S. Schweber, Eugene F. Irschick, and Charles Hallisey. Is there anything you criticize my new articles for that doesn't apply equally well to them? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You didn't replied to my comment at Talk:List of Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery#Blog post. Specifically I want to know if you are aware of any Computer scientist who flaunts their foreign language skills. I am the author of the various language articles on Wikiquote. In the end page of Robin Hartshorne's (in)famous Algebraic Geometry (book) the notes say Hartshorne lectured at the College de France and at Kyoto University in French and in Japanese, respectively. Similarly Edward Frenkel speculates that Robert Langlands (founder of the eponymous Langlands program) versatility with languages (French, Russian, German and Turkish) "may have had something to do with his ability to see connections in disparate fields of mathematics". I want to know if this language-math connection extends to, say, computer science and statistics. I am also the author of several disease related Wikiquote articles which you may also want to have a look at if you plan to create articles on Bio-statisticians. Solomon7968 08:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I know plenty of multilingual computer scientists but for them it has all been out of necessity (grew up in one country, work in another, need English to communicate with international colleagues) rather than something they flaunt. So my list of computer scientists who flaunt their foreign language skills would be: everyone who is not a native speaker of English. But that's too large a fraction of everyone to be able to point to exceptionally fluent people and claim that their fluency has something to do with their other talents. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it is obvious from my comment that I am not referring to fluency in English. The "ordinary" professor would communicate with the Japanese folks in English. Hartshorne is exceptional because he does so in (fluent) Japanese. Solomon7968 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it was not obvious. Why do you think an English-speaker learning Japanese is somehow more special than a Japanese speaker learning English? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Because English language literature with its ubiquitous Latin script is easily available in Japanese libraries and homes and Japanese children are presumably taught English in schools. However "Perhaps only three or four of the greatest universities in the world have such resources" to teach Japanese in the rest of the World. I guess Harvard is almost certainly one such university. FWIW I just started the Wikiquote article on Martha Nussbaum‎ searching for "Widener Library + Martha Nussbaum‎" on Google Books. However I have failed to get hold of similar quotes searching for "Widener Library + Any other academic". EEng (the top contributor to our Widener Library article) would you be able to start a new Wikiquote page on Widener and a Harvard Current and Former Junior Fellows list here (as I notice you added this info to the Elkies article)? Solomon7968 10:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there are any quotes left about Widener that I haven't already shoehorned into its article already. EEng 14:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The public high school I went to teaches Japanese to its students as an elective. It's far from limited to a tiny number of great universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mine too, together with Chinese, Italian, Russian, Portuguese, and Swahili. I'm not sure where Solomon gets these ideas. EEng 17:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe my view is biased by the fact that in India speaking English fluently is associated with power and prestige than learning. Just learning a language is not enough; you have to be able to fluent enough in it to contribute to its, say, corresponding Wikipedia and interact with its native speakers. If you keep fluency in mind then I am sure, just as Burton Feldman (associated with Columbia and Chicago) mentions, even in the World only a handful of university educated folks can succeed. Solomon7968 04:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

You're in India and yet you think speaking multiple languages is unusual? I thought that attitude was found only in primarily-English-speaking countries. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Because thanks to low funding and the linguistic variation in Indian states Indian libraries can't afford books other than the regional language, Hindi and English. Some libraries can of course acquire books on the whole spectrum of multiple languages but they are very few. In my home state West Bengal such libraries include of the top of my head The Asiatic Society, Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture and the National Library of India. One of the extreme case I know of is Harinath De (my creation) the first Indian librarian of the National Library of India who in a life span of thirty four years learned 34 languages. Things are changing of course with the rise of the Internet (other languages Wikipedia I mean) and the Murty Classical Library of India. Solomon7968 05:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

34 languages truly is impressive, well past learning a second or fourth language out of necessity, I have to admit. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Jeanne LaDuke

On 25 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jeanne LaDuke, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jeanne LaDuke worked alongside Natalie Wood as a child actor before becoming a professional mathematician? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeanne LaDuke. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jeanne LaDuke), 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) 00:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hi David. Make sure that you are consistent with formatting dates. You're using both digits and words and the rules of the contest state that articles need to be consistent in that. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: I am using spelled-out dates (MMM DD, YYYY or DD MMM YYY depending on nationality) for everything but accessdates, for which I am consistently using YYYY-MM-DD. This is explicitly allowed in Help:Citation Style 1 (or Citation style 2, which is the one I am actually using): "Access and archive dates in references should be in either the format used for publication dates, or YYYY-MM-DD". The only mention of this in the contest rules is the vague phrase "Try to make the formatting consistent with dates". I am being consistent, with an explicit, standard, and commonly used Wikipedia format. If the contest bot is marking my dates as being inconsistent (as it appears to be doing) then the bot is broken. And if this broken behavior of the bot is causing my entries to be disqualified, then the contest is also broken. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't using the digit format but that you're also using the other style sometimes on the same sources with 20 September and then 2017-11-23 etc. Pick one way of doing it. Do that and the bot will approve them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Try reading more carefully. I am using 20 September for the publication dates and 9-20 for the access dates. This exact variation in format is explicitly allowed in the documentation for the most standard citation format used across Wikipedia. It is not an inconsistency. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, DE is right about this. YYYY-MM-DD is explicitly accepted for archive and access dates regardless of the format used in the other parts of the citations or in the article proper – see MOS:DATEFORMAT#Consistency. EEng 02:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I knew that was also somewhere in MOS but could only find the Help:CS1 link describing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Everybody I know picks one date format, text or digits and consistently uses it rather than writing both styles in one citation. Using both styles in a single ref is rarer from what I've seen. I agree that as it seems to be acceptable MOS the bot needs to be modified to accept it. I have asked Emirjp to update.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

MathWorks edit requests

Hi! Thank you for your help patrolling the requested edits backlog. I saw you closed the edit request at MathWorks and I'd like you to take a second look, please. Altamel partially answered the request in August, but asked for a few edits and revisions, which I provided—you can see the dialogue inline on the Talk page requests. However, I reached out to Altamel several times after that and did not receive any kind of follow-up, so I reopened the edit request, as several items are still outstanding. At one point after that Jytdog reviewed the article and added a few citation needed tags, which I also addressed in a reply to my original Talk page post, again without a response.

I understand that as a COI editor on Wikipedia, I am relying on the generosity of volunteer editors, and no one owes me their time. However, my client has been patiently waiting for four full months for a response to these fairly simple edit requests, and has been under significant internal pressure to make the edits directly despite my advising against it. I humbly ask that you take a second look at the outstanding items from my original request, or at least permit me to reopen the request. I don't know if that will require me to restart at the bottom of the queue for a third time, but that is better than nothing.

Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Contest

David, the contest is designed to try to be as efficient and least time consuming as possible. WMF were dubious that I could run a big contest and for it to require minimal running. So the bot has been designed to take care of the bulk of the work. It's largely been successful in spotting issues. In your case it simply had not been programmed to accept both date styles in the same ref. The bot is flawed as it is a bot, but I resent your remark that the contest itself is "badly" flawed when it's been a huge success producing articles on every country. Your heart obviously isn't into what we're trying to do, and you prefer to do your own thing anyway which is fine. We would appreciate your support as a team in the way that you support women in red generally and date formatting is extremely trivial in the wider context. I'm sorry that you thought I was wasting your time or would somehow be unrelenting on solving your issue. If you're not interested in prizes you can skip the entries pages anyway and just add to the main list where the bot isn't coded to operate. It is contest though so my point was that I do need to be as consistent as possible. Keep up the good work anyway even if you don't want to support our cause.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No comments? "Keep up the good work anyway even if you don't want to support our cause."... Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Btw, look Wikipedia:Activist. Eppstein is honest and has no "cause", he has good ethics. Blofeld, please rethink your actions. ^_^ Best, Flannán (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC) (P.S. Marry Christmas)

The situation was resolved before the contest ended the next day. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you David for your hard work and dedication to Wikipedia, your articles do make a big difference and I appreciate your support. Wikipedia needs experts like yourself in your field. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

My congratulations too.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:David Eppstein reported by User:MakinaterJones (Result: ). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who cares: the context is Oncotarget and Talk:Oncotarget. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Canadian biographies

Hi, David Eppstein! I saw you wrote some Canadian biographies for the WIR Contest. If you'd like, you can also submit these to The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Please use this link for convenience. Thanks for all your work on the contest! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, David Eppstein. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Procedure

David, what is the best procedure to stop a passive aggressive troll from hounding? ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. WP:DENY maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not that kind of troll - it's a part-time editor who is consistently hounding and misinterpreting PAGs, and interfering with my ability to get work done at NPP and AfD. I asked Kudpung to maybe have a word with her, but he says he's busy in RL. I think he only deals with vandals. Going to AN/I reminds me of wading across the Amazon when the piranhas are feeding. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

I wanted to thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Loughan. Your logic is sound, and I appreciate that. Best regards, Ventric (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The amount of work you have donated to Wikipedia is very impressive. I think that you are one of the best users Wikipedia has ever had. I have spent more time reading Wikipedia than editing it, and I could not avoid noticing that you greatly increased the content of various articles, and that your contributions are of very high quality. That is why I'm sending you this star. MathKeduor7 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

de Broglie double solution

I noticed you've had a run-in with User:Mikec755, a single purpose account promoting a view on de Broglie's double solution interpretation (which to my knowledge is not a fully developed interpretation of QM) on the Delayed choice quantum eraser article. I've recently also had a disagreement with this user on the page Talk:Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#NPOV_Issue_with_De_Broglie, and note that he has made similar edits to the one you reverted on de Broglie's Double Solution Theory and Double-slit experiment. I'd welcome your comments or other input on any of these. Porphyro (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Revison of the article on Formal Concept Analysis

Hi David, thank you so much for your helpful comments on the FCA article. As you probably have noticed, I have worked on a thorough revision, which is still unfinished. Of course, your comments would be very welcome.

There was that communication with User:Diego on the talk page about the first sentence "... is a principled way of deriving ...". Not being a native speaker, I cannot judge if this wording is appropriate. I therefore left it unchanged. If you think that it should be altered, then I would be grateful for a hint. This applies to other formulations as well, of course, but that should not trespass on your time too much. --Bernhard Ganter (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links to Hecke algebra

Would I be correct in presuming that the link to Hecke algebra in Brandt matrix intends Iwahori–Hecke algebra? This was the original target of the link. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No idea, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Jewish Canadians

Hi David, I saw you removed some people I added from the list of Canadian Jews. You posted a message on my Talk page telling me that Wikipedia is very strict about how we write about living or recently deceased people. I wasn't writing about them, I was simply referencing them in a list of Canadian Jews. I added no new information about Dr. Joseph Schwartz - I simply included him on a list of Canadian Jews, which his Wikipedia page says he is. So please stop removing my work for no valid purpose. I'm not sure what your issue is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samnolandmcbee (talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You MUST NOT add information claiming that people are Jews (or any other ethnic or religious group) without reliable published sources stating that they are Jews and that this is somehow "defining" for that person. See WP:CATGRS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Martha Farnsworth Riche

On 15 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Martha Farnsworth Riche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before becoming director of the United States Census Bureau, Martha Farnsworth Riche earned a doctorate in French literature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martha Farnsworth Riche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Martha Farnsworth Riche), 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.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Marjorie Hahn

On 17 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marjorie Hahn, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marjorie Hahn, a retired mathematics professor and international senior-level tennis player, approaches tennis games with the same plan that she uses for mathematical proofs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marjorie Hahn. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marjorie Hahn), 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) 00:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

primesieve.org

Sieve of Eratosthenes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhaelkh (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

http://primesieve.org/#algorithms

primesieve generates primes using the segmented sieve of Eratosthenes with wheel factorization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhaelkh (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The holiday season is upon us...

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme📞📧 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a happy holiday celebration and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

That is one odd-looking Christmas tree. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Tacito Augusto Farias

Tacito Augusto Farias. No comments needed. I just wanted to call your attention to this "article". Best, Flannán (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And best of the holidays to you, too. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hilary Swarts

On 22 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hilary Swarts, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a silverback gorilla sat on Hilary Swarts' head? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hilary Swarts. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hilary Swarts), 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, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Question really is...

... why is this in a quotation anyway? The quotation doesn't even have an inline reference directly after it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It's in a quotation because I wanted to include the information in that sentence into our article, but it was too specific to paraphrase without becoming an inappropriate close paraphrase. If we're going to have to mark that sequence of specific animals in specific places as all coming from that source, the easiest way to do it is to actually quote the source. And the inline reference is the next one in the same paragraph, as one would expect. I think it looks stupid to have two sentences in a row with the same footnote, even if the first one is a quote. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

It really doesn't need to be a quote by any means. But I get this feeling you'll reject pretty much anything I do or suggest, so I'll make my best efforts to work out which articles are "yours" and leave them well alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Or, you could try making edits that are more substantive than changing valid date formats and valid spellings. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I think I'll leave you to your 'particular' way of doing things, and will strenuously avoid 'your' articles. You clearly have no idea what I do around Wikipedia with such a flippant and insulting remark. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the ones I've reverted (that I recall) have been the date format and spelling ones. You'll notice I left your other more-constructive edits on Hilary Swarts unchanged. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I dare say there's no one in the galaxy not in a vegetative state who is unaware of what you do around Wikipedia. 172.58.216.41 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

How hatting handles downloads

Far be it from me to understand coding which may explain why I would ask the following question: if a TP has more than its share of images/graphics which causes the page to download slowly, would it help to hat/hab the image-laden sections or would the only difference be appearance with no change in the speed of the download? Is it even possible to include a command that bypasses the download of images in hatted sections until "show" is activated? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

All the html coding for the content within the hatted part of the page is still there, but surrounded by something that causes your browser to not show it unless/until you click on the show button. So it would really depend on how the browser is coded — does it ask for images immediately when it renders a page that contains the image, or only when the image that it needs becomes visible? My guess is that it wouldn't be any different from what happens when an image is part of the visible text but is scrolled off-screen, but I don't know for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ssshhhh...can we convince EEng to be our test subject? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Prisoners" New: "Fashion designers" New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pique

I assume you've noticed, but just in case: [7] --JBL (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Too advanced math for me

I want to create the article Yau's conjecture, but I don't understand the math. I can paraphrase what the sources say, and the article will be correct and useful. Is this good practice? Flannán (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the best source is a blog (one written by the prodigy Carlos Matheus, though). Flannán (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

https://matheuscmss.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/yaus-conjecture-of-abundance-of-minimal-hypersurfaces-is-generically-true-in-low-dimensions/

Flannán (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I have just created a stub. Flannán (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what all that means, hahahahaaha. Flannán (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I think the general principle of writing only up to the level of depth that you understand is a good one. So if your understanding is stub-level, then creating a short stub like this is a good choice. It's not an area of mathematics that I know a lot about myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. A good example is the stubbing of Toe. EEng 17:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, David Eppstein and EEng! Flannán (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

How did you do it?!?

I was impressed by this list of reveiews you added to Barbara Taylor. I am curious - may I ask how you created it? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I searched for the title of the book in Google Scholar (using search string intitle:"Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination") and in JSTOR (using the quoted string "Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination"), checked which of the results were reviews, and formatted those ones with the assistance of some custom software. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the custom software made it very neat indeed. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

You kids today have it easy, with your interweb "searches" and custom "software". EEng 21:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

On the edits of user Cherkash

Hi, I think you have already noticed, but I confirm you that this user is behaving very badly, substituting every correct singular possessive form "...s' " for person names ending with "...s" with the incorrect form "...s's ". Daniele.tampieri (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)