User talk:David Eppstein/2011c

Moved from your user page
I moved this from DE's user page to his talk page. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Professor Guranda Gvaladze
Dear Mr. Eppstein, You and other users deleted the article about the outstanding Georgian botanist, Doctor of Biological Sciences (1973), Professor (1991) Guranda E. Gvaladze (b. in 1932). She is one of the founders of the Georgian scientific school of Plant Embryology, founder (1990) and the 1st Head (in 1990-2003) of the Department of Plant Reproduction Research of the Georgian National Botanical Garden (former Ketskhoveli Botanical Institute) at the Ilia State University (Tbilisi). Since 2003 she is a Chief Research Fellow of this Department. Since 1959 Professor Gvaladze published more than 180 scientific works, among them 3 monographs. Since 1990 she is a Founding Member of the International Associacion on Plant Sexual Reproduction Research (IAPSRR), since 1983 - a Member of the Board of the Georgian Botanical Society (Member of this Society since 1958). She received the International S. Navashin Medail (1990). In 1998 Professor Guranda Gvaladze was elected as an Academician of the Abkhazian National Academy of Sciences (former "Abkhazian Regional Academy of Sciences"), based in Tbilisi. This Academy is registered by the Ministry of Justice of Georgia and fully recognized by the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. Please, restore the article about Prof. Gvaladze. Thank you in advance. With kind regards, Professor Zurab D. Urushadze ( zurabu@hotmail.com ).
 * I'm answering this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting where the same request appears. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  04:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at and the block history here, Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Theil–Sen estimator
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Correction of mistakes in the entry about Frederick J. Almgren, Jr.
Hi David (could I call you so or should I call you "Prof. Eppstein"?), I saw you corrected all the mess I did with the references in the entry about Frederick J. Almgren, Jr., shuffling names ans surames: well done! Thank you very much! :D Daniele.tampieri (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! (And calling me David is fine.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Livejournal
I have stored some very important files on my livejournal diary account assumiming my files are safe there. Is it safe? Can i rest assured that it will still be there one year from now? Pass a Method  talk  20:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why ask me? I have no inside knowledge about Livejournal. But my default answer to this kind of question, for any online service provider, is "no, keep a backup yourself". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know any similar websites to livejournal where i could keep notes on a diary ? Pass a Method   talk  12:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As David already said, why are you asking him?? There are many resources on the web that attempt to provide good answers for this type of question. You're looking in the wrong place for the answer. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 13:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A common problem
Dear Wikipedist editor, I want to submit to your attention an our common problem: disruptive contributions and edit warring operated by user Derek farn (talk). This latter shows systematically a provoking behaviour and lacking of respect for other people’s work, typical of vandalism. I’ve sent this communication to many people having the same problem in order to organize a collective protest/action request directed to e.g. the Arbitration Committee or Requests for comment/User conduct (this latter procedure requires the participation of at least two users) or to the Wikipedia Community. If you agree with this initiative please contact me at this dedicated email address: clipeaster-1971 AT yahoo DOT com. In order to avoid creating of a forum section dedicated to Derek farn I suggest you to delete this communication once you’ve read it and, then, be in contact via email. Any suggestion are welcomed. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC).
 * As another user pointed out to me that suggesting to be in contact outside wikipedia is not a correct way, for transparency reasons, so I conclude that we need to correspond via talk page. Best regards, Structuralgeol (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC).

I agree and thanks
Well, yes, you are correct. The statement (on dB-E type results at weakly compact and above strongly compact cardinals) is easy to prove by today's standard, though I could not find any place that explicitly states and proves it. In any case, the argument is probably implicit in the 1961 paper of Erdős and Tarski. Kope (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for De Bruijn–Erdős theorem (graph theory)
Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hardy–Ramanujan Journal
Could you perhaps have a look at this article? I cannot find much about it. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Biographies for Biologists
Hi David, I've been spending a bit of time compiling a list of renowned geneticists that still don't have a biography in Wikipedia, and as you've noticed, I've added stubs for a few of them. Yesterday, I found about this page for requests: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/Biologists If it's ok with you, I intend to fill up the new entries there, as well as write a short stub for the new entry myself. Let me know if there is a better way of proceeding. User:Avilella Avilella (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you check whether they pass WP:PROF first, that sounds fine. In the case of Jonathan K. Pritchard, he has very high citation numbers on Google scholar (I generally look for a half dozen or so papers with 100+ citations and he has a few with thousands), and is a full professor at a very good university, so it looks clear that criterion 1 at least is passed. The ones to watch out for are assistant professors and postdocs who haven't yet had enough time in their careers to make an impact or differentiate themselves from their advisors, or maybe worse senior researchers with a steady stream of very-low-impact publications.. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Degeneracy (graph theory)
Dear David, I was the creator of the original page about k-core decomposition;then, the time was done that page evolve just up to this new title. The cite "Alvarez-Hamelin, José Ignacio; Dall'Asta, Luca; Barrat, Alain; Vespignani, Alessandro (2005), k-core decomposition: a tool for the visualization of large scale networks, arXiv:cs/0504107" with "Gaertler, Marco; Patrignani, Maurizio (2004), "Dynamic analysis of the autonomous system graph", Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Inter-Domain Performance and Simulation (IPS 2004), pp. 13–24" where the first applications of this decomposition on graph visualization, specifically on the AS Internet map. The reference that you erased was just a evolution of the first article [AHDBV2005], and it is a complete reference. Could you explain how it fails?

Best regards,

J.Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin (ignalvarez) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.36.145 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looked like a self-published web page rather than like a reliably published academic paper to me. But if you can tell me the journal or peer-reviewed conference that it appeared in, we can put it back. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(ignalvarez): here reference of the publication of 2005: J. Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin, Luca Dall'Asta, Alain Barrat, and Alessandro Vespignani. Large scale networks fingerprinting and visualization using the k-core decomposition. In Y. Weiss, B. Schölkopf, and J. Platt, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, pages 41-50, Cambridge, MA, 2006. MIT Press. The other one has no publication yet, in effect is just an upgrade of the original visualization version, therefore I do not think that became a publication. In any case, if you need other links around Internet for the "===> I'm here (*)" page, I can provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignalvarez (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You will find here an external link to the "===> I'm here (*)" page: http://www.caida.org/data/publications/bydate/index.xml (in 2011). Do you think that this reference can be added again in the article? Best regards. Ignalvarez (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "LArge NETworks VIsualization tool" doesn't look like the name of a conference, journal, or other reliable third-party publisher to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear David, I already say to you in my previous message (25 July 2011) that this in just a tool, not a publication, and I also asked if external links were enough, but you only answer today negatively, before that I provide an external reference. Please, to be clear, you only consider conference or journal as a reliable third-party publisher? The link that I provided is: 1_ a permanent web-page; 2_ it is a third party, i.e., I do not work at CAIDA, 3_ it is prestigious research center, 4_ it is not a home page, 5_ it is related to the topic of my tool. I understand that the authenticity of the information is the basement of this site (I agree with this), and this is fulfilled with this 5 points that I exposed. Ignalvarez (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have pointed you before to the Wikipedia guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source. Please read it this time. In this context "third party" means someone not directly associated with you and your co-authors; that is, it's self-published if you or your co-authors put it up on a web site under your or your employer's control, but reliably published if it's in a peer-reviewed journal or some other medium that involves people outside your circle agreeing to publish it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear David, first of all I believe that wiki-policies lead to a social-build content of high quality, which is assured by the engagement of everybody; and, from this point of view I recognize and acknowledge your dedication maintaining these wiki-pages. I this line, I try to demonstrate to you that reference is no self-published: please, let me know which of my previous 5 points do not reveal that, and just to be clear: neither I nor the other authors work to CAIDA, they put the link (into 'Non CAIDA publication, which means: none of the authors work to CAIDA) because we use data from CAIDA, i.e., this link is not self-published. Thank you again for your time. Ignalvarez (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Appr
Thank you for a DYK review in a style I like for Gloria (Handel)! Did you see my note about a review I am ready to frame (for decency) on that overloaded discussion page? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't, but now I have. I guess too many people there don't want to WP:AGF that such reviews really are serious and thorough. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanity scam?
I'd like to find out why you believe the Handley-Taylor (1974) reference on the Wong Phui Nam article is a "vanity scam". This may be true, but I would like to verify it before removal. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read our article on the International Biographical Centre. Basically they make their money by putting people in their who's who listings (or making up awards to give them) and then getting them to buy the books (pr award plaques etc) for exorbitant amounts. For which reason, entries in these books and awards can't be trusted to be objective. Also, it makes including them in our articles a bit embarrassing for the subjects if they ever realize they've been scammed. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the clarification. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Synthetic logic
I saw that you participated in the AfD for Stephen Palmquist. The discussion on his synthetic logic could use more discussion. If you're interested, see
 * Articles for deletion/Synthetic logic

Thanks!

CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know/Michel Demazure
Hello! Your submission of Michel Demazure at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Basically, there are discrepancies with the hook against what the article and source say. –MuZemike 21:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Michel Demazure
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you......
Hello,David Eppstein,can you take a look at reliable sources/noticeboard,there is a question of reliability of urdutoday.com, "More then two weeks no any review yet?". Please see discussion and help giving your opinion.May you find interesting to take a look at Ehsan Sehgal discussion page too,may be I ask further your assistance in this regard.Please leave message on my talk page. Thanks. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Advanced Science and Engineering
The last time I logged in was sometime ago and I find that articles I worked on have been deleted: esp. for the Institute for Advanced Science and Engineering. I would have voted against these being deleted but I have no time to get involved or to repair the damage. Both articles - including the one for Steve Zenith who leads IASE - seem relevant and important to wikipedia because I personally know how highly regarded they are here. There is a lot of excitement about their work and where it is taking us, they just tend to not publish much and be very understated. I hope that someone with more time than me will pick it back up. --Myscience (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesterman again
I don't know if you're still watching that page, but see. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of the page on the International DOI Foundation (IDF)
Hi David,

I noticed you deleted the stub that I'd created on the International DOI Foundation. While I understand why you feel the IDF and DOI pages can essentially be merged, I think the distinction between the two is important.

In the words of Norman Paskin (IDF Founder), "Persistence is a function of organizations, not technology: to support a persistent identifier system, a persistent organization needs to exist." (http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june03/paskin/06paskin.html)

For me, the fact that you could find "no reliable third party sources about [IDF] rather than about doi" highlights the need to document what we *do* know about the IDF, and Wikipedia seems like the appropriate place to do this. Personally I think merging the two pages just creates an unhelpful ambiguity.

I have had a very quick google and listed a some pages that refer to IDF as an organisation distinct from the DOI itself:


 * http://www.dcc.ac.uk/news/registration-open-2009-idf-open-meeting-ensuring-persistence
 * http://eidr.org/resources/ ('What is the IDF')
 * http://www.iso.org/iso/about/organizations_in_liaison/organizations_in_liaison_details.htm?id=284431
 * http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0004.203
 * http://www.arrow-net.eu/news/idf-partners-europeana.html
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098791307000688#secx2
 * http://www.ihs.com/news/idf-china-ra.htm

I hope that you'll reconsider your position on this and look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks, Tomjpollard (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't delete it, I redirected it. Second, to have a separate article here, an organization must pass our standards of notability for organizations. Primarily, there must be third-party press that is reliably published and that contains a nontrivial amount of description of the organization, rather than merely mentioning it in passing in the context of some other subject. I looked for but didn't find good sources for the foundation. Even in our DOI article, the parts about the foundation are sourced to itself rather than being published by third parties.
 * Of the sources you list: the meeting announcement does not provide nontrivial coverage of the IDF as an organization, and appears to be a copy of a press release rather than a reliably published independent article. The EIDR web site is from an organization closely associated with the IDF. The ISO page is reliable and third-party but doesn't say anything nontrivial about IDF. The JEP article is also reliable but describes the IDF only very briefly at the end of a long article about the DOI system. The ARROW piece is short, primarily about the Europeana project, and the only thing it says about IDF is that they joined the project. The Serials Review article does have some nontrivial coverage of IDF, a single paragraph worth, in the context of a longer article about DOI. And the IHS article is about Chinese-language DOIs rather than about the IDF.
 * My conclusion is that the section of coverage within the DOI article is about as much as can be reliably sourced about this organization, that what notability the IDF has is entirely due to the DOI system rather than being in any way independent of DOIs, and that creating a separate article is pointless because it's not going to say anything more than what's already in the DOI article and would be vulnerable to deletion. Keeping it as a redirect to a section within the DOI article is safer, and leads readers to all the same information. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi David, thanks for your reply. Perhaps my initial stub was a little weak, but the IDF is embedded enough into the web that I'm sure there are appropriate sources of information around. My view is that there would have been value in leaving the page at least long enough for others to review and contribute. Removing (/redirecting) it immediately restricts potential for growth. Saying that, I do see your point about the benefits of keeping everything in one place. Perhaps I'll do a bit more research on sources at a later date. Tomjpollard (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Baltzer Science Publishers
David, When i look up " notability" on Wikipedia, it says the following:

Notability of a subject determines which articles will be included or not at Wikipedia.

Notability, according to Wikipedia itself, thus does not refer to the content of particular parts of a wikipedia entry. So one can argue that BSP was never notable, and thus should not be on Wikipedia. However, given that there is an article on Baltzer Science Publishers, the notability argument in no way implies that particular parts of the artixle should be removed, for example because the subject of the article is no longer notable. Hence, the argument that the new BSP is not notable does not justify youbor other authors having incorrect information in the article, or remove information that applies to a period after which you or other people no longer consider BSP notable. In fact, by applying a symmetric argument, any company that is defunct is non- notable. Hence any article about defunct businesses could be removed.

Clearly, that does not conform to Wikipedia's policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperroszbach (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are two different companies named Baltzer Science Publishers, one defunct and sold, the other newly founded, then they must be in separate articles according to WP:NOTDICT. However, each article must separately meet WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like notability as an argument is not brought forward anymore. To me, an acceptable solution would be to rename the current article "the fomer BSP". i can then write the I wrote before in a new article "BSP". conflict of interest is not an issue here. I find the persistent re- instatement of incorrect information by  you particularly disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasperroszbach (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Sorry for not signing, I thought this occurred automatically. Kasperroszbach (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Look. Your persistent single-issue spamming is likely to get you blocked. If you want to push your publisher, find some way outside Wikipedia to get press for it. Once people start writing articles about it elsewhere, there will be a much better argument for having an article here. Then, and only then, we can start worrying about how to name articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I copied this discussion onto the article talk page here. I think that may be the more appropriate venue if other editors become involved - and I may comment there myself. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Malfatti Circles: Italian vs. French
This may not seem such a significant point these days, when English is so universal, and maybe it might be made equally as well in some other section of the article on Malfatti Circles, but the appearance in the very first volume of Gergonne's Annales in 1810/11 is what made Malfatt's problem better known, but in the tangent-circles version.

Perhaps as significant for why the discrepancy was only noted as late as 1929 by Lob and Richmond is that they took the trouble to go back to Malfatti's Italian, which, indeed, they quote.

By the bye, Ogilvy does cite Eves, but not the ``Monthly" problem in 1946, which attracted no takers, but a much later book by Eves in which Eves does not even mention his own ``Monthly" problem.

Most of these points were set out in an extensive, but unpublished, source to which Richard Guy had access for his ``Monthly" article in 2007.

It might be worth adding the Adolphe Quidde's work on concurrent triads of common tangents to three circles kindled renewed interest in the early 1930s, when it was realized what he had proved.

Malfatti Circles: An earlier Japanese appearance?
As you are eager to police the article Malfatti Circles, I draw your attention to a likely earlier appearance in ``Seiyo Sanpo" (preface 1779, issued 1781; 3 fasc.) by Fujita Sadasuke (1734--1807). Fujita and Ajima were friends, and Ajima writes in an afterword to the book that he proofread it.

The possible appearance in question is the left-hand one on p. 43 of the third fascicle on view at: .

Turning back a page, we see a possible instance of the greedy search in the case of a right triangle in the right-hand question on p. 41 at: .

I leave you to edit the article as you please, whether to reflect the earlier date Fujita's problems or not (Ajima died in 1798).

In any case, the English commentary , pp. 37--39, for an edition in 1966 of the collected works of Ajima allows us to give 1789 as the terminus ad quem for Ajima's work on the Malfatti configuration of circles --- as is pointed out there, a striking feature is the similarity of the results of Ajima and Malfatti.
 * Thanks, I didn't have time to look carefully at this today but will try to get to it soon. And thanks again for your improvements to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Nymwars
David,

I see you have removed the most detailed registry of Nymwars articles, calling it a blog or personal webpage (which is isn't really). Do you want to suggest with that that we should incorporate this list into the article? If not, would you please take the time and really justify the removal of the link to this resource? It is not my resource, it's been mintained by a guy called Todd Vierling who is one of the more involved people in the whole mess.

I'd prefer reinserting the link. --grin ✎ 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer keeping the article squeaky clean regarding the use of reliable sources only, to avoid creating any excuse for trying to delete it. And though I agree that it is a helpful link, Wikipedia is not a directory of helpful links and I really don't think it passes our policy on what external links are permitted. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the link, btw? It is not an article but the reference list of the related publications. I do think it offers a vast information source to the reader if s/he want to understand why the war is on and what the different participants believe in. I have read WP:EL and I do not agree with you that it'd apply; I do not believe an external link possibly could justify deletion and I am kind of unhappy to see WP:NOTLINK referenced for a real article with some external links. But what the heck, I do not care that much about the article. I'll put the ref on the talk page and let it live. Thanks. --grin ✎ 22:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum
LMAO. Two weeks and nary a word on the rv, with edits whenever you're not lecturing? Alright, let's take it to the talk page. If I have time tonight, I'll start a section. If one gets created before that, I'll respond instead. I'll expect the decorum and pedantic fortitude of tenure ;-). CanuckMike (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't always watchlist every article I've edited (though I did watchlist this one), and I don't always see every edit that comes by. On the day those edits happened, I was vacationing in New York City, visiting MoMA, not paying much attention to Wikipedia. So I don't think you can infer much from my lack of a more timely response. And tenure means not having to say you're sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that the particular timing of your revert smacks of HWing (yes, I'm pushing for "Hullaballoo Wolfowitzing" becoming a verb, or is that a compound verb? meh, I'll write a tangential guest column in IEEE Spectrum and then ref it here, to be sorted by the arm chair literati). "And tenure means not having to say you're sorry." Sounds like I'll get what I'm expecting :-p. CanuckMike (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Malfatti Circles: More from the C18 Japanese mathematicians
The left-hand problem on p. 43 of the third fascicle of Seiyo Sanpo (preface 1779, issued 1781) by Fujita Sadasuke (1734--1807) asks for the diameter of the inscribed circle of a triangle whose Malfatti circles have diameters are 256, 225 and 144; the answer is 320. In giving a recipe for the answer, Fujita ranks the diameters in order, and then develops the formula in pieces perhaps suggestive of the steps taken to derive the answer. Fujita's formula does not at first appear symmetric in the three diameters, but after an easy simplication it is seen to be symmetric, equivalent to that given by Fukagawa and Rothman on p. 216, but from a text dated 1841. In fact, Fujita's triangle has sides 1014, 750, 504. Clearly his Malfatti diameters have been chosen with two scalings of the 3-4-5 triangle in mind to give 12^2 + 15^2 + 16^2 = 25^2, handy for working the formula.

On the other hand, Ajima Naonobu (1732--1798) in his study, Sansha Sanen Jutsu (in or before 1789), of the Malfatti configuration, gives a complete account of how the diameters of the Malfatti circles are related to the sides. Turning to numerical examples, he cites the triangle with sides 507, 375 and 252, so scaling Fujita's triangle by 1/2. However, this triangle is obtained from two Pythagorean triangles, 357-507-360 and 105-375-360 by placing the latter over the former along their common altitude.

Already Matsunaga Yoshisuke knew how to generate Pythagorean triples (effectively by means of the ternary tree of such triples, a point that might itself be worthy of note in Wikipedia) and Seiyo Sanpo contains an extensive catalogue of Pythagorean triples.

You will understand that I am telling you these things, rather than editing the actual entry, because I know you take a very strong stand on Wikipedia's policies on original research.

Sartorial splendor
Hi David!

You'll get a kick out of viewing the new photo at Rosemary A. Bailey!

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misplacing this on the article talk page, at a late hour. Thanks to you and John for the correction. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 14:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

James A. Shapiro
Thank you for locating the sources and expanding this article. If more editors were doing work like this, Wikipedia would really be progressing towards becoming a legitimate encyclopedia. Great work. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

External Link on H-Index page
The link I added to h-index is not spam. It links to a very good software I designed for calculating the h-index and other parameters online. It sends the results by email in a cvs format. For more info please see this link. Also I'm not advertising my personal website, Via-academy is an organisation of Italian Scientists working abroad, it has around 400 members, which includes professors and researchers working for Universities around the world, but mainly in UK. This software has been tested by the Via-academy's members and it has been using by many Italian Academics in Italy. The results of this software are under rewiew by the ANVUR, the National Agency for the Evaluation of Italian Universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca boscolo (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Heymons
Hi, thanks for sweeping up after me! I am too used to working on RfD. :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ooh, pretty. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WP Computer Science in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Computer Science for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

SFL at FAC
Hi David!

You deserve a personal notice that I nominated the Shapley–Folkman lemma for Featured Article status, which has already resulted in several helpful copy edits. I thought that this was the best way to improve the article, because my time commitments may soon be more pressing (and because it's at least a plausible candidate): I won't have the time to remove the SF(S) theorem from the SF lemma article, now.

The biggest problem is the inappropriately labeled non-convex preference, with backwards normal vector. The normal (price) vector should have positive coefficients; now, it points the wrong way. There should be two small disks at the two points across which the consumer "jumps" (between which the consumer is indifferent). There should be no mention of Pareto surfaces of vector-valued maximization. The axes should have simpler labeling.

Other issues are minor in comparison.

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article nomination
So far, the nomination has 3 supports and no opposes. I believe that I have successfully addressed the actionable concerns, already raised.

At risk of jinxing the nomination, I started to draft a lede for the main page. If you have any preference about graphics, or any comments, then they would be of great interest.
 * 1) The draft lede is now at 1700 characters, and so it needs to be cut to 1200 characters.
 * 2) I used your blue SFS-theorem graphic, because the 5-pane pink graphic displays poorly sized at 100 pixel. (On the other hand, the blue graphic need not be best for the blue-tint of the main page.)

Thanks again for your contributions!

Best regards, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Avengers assemble!

 * Hi again, David!
 * The article has no opposes and three formidable supports, FA juggernaut Malleus Fatuorum and two experienced economists & Wikipedians (Protonk and Volunteer Marek). Protonk suggested that I renew my requests for volunteer reviewers.
 * I drafted a main-page lede on the article's talk page.
 * Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Geometry Guy made some very good criticisms, which occupied me the better part of today. I'm on the road now, and it may be a week before I can return to editing. (It may be only a delay until Monday-Tuesday if the hotel is adequate.) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Your statement addressed my main concern about the RfC, and so I am very grateful. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

robert berger linked MR
how do you do that? i couldn't figure out how to find a stable link through the proxy i have to use. (i'll watch here for answer)&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. nice work on the article, by the way.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * . Or use the mr parameter in the citation and cite journal templates. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * fabulous. thanks!&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)