User talk:David Eppstein/2014d

Jacob Barnett
Could you please provide any other category instead of category:Students which you removed in this edit? I tried to add category:American physicists first. Then User:Slawekb removed it saying "err... no, that is not the headline of the indystar article. And "physicist" generally does not include physics students". There must be at least one category which defines the occupation of the person. In french article they categorized him as an astrophysicist. Will it be OK for english wikipedia? Best regards, --217.21.43.22 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we had a category on child prodigies, that would be where to put him, but we don't. I don't know what his current occupation is; we don't seem to have any sources for what he has done after finishing his master's degree. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pizza theorem- Two similar rectangle theorem
Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

Please see "Similar rectangle theorem" and some applications

http://oaithanhdao.blogspot.com/2014/09/two-similar-rectangle-theorem.html

Some applications:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdvancedPlaneGeometry/photos/photostream/lightbox/48794141?orderBy=mtime&sortOrder=desc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/48794141

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdvancedPlaneGeometry/photos/photostream/lightbox/48794141?orderBy=mtime&sortOrder=desc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/1123121522

Best regards Sincerely --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see Dao's generalization Simson line theorem
Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

Please see Dao's generalization Simson line theorem

http://oaithanhdao.blogspot.com/2014/09/problem-1-let-triangle-let-line.html

Best regards Sincerely --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my generalization Newton's line theorem
Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

Please see http://oaithanhdao.blogspot.com/2014/09/57-generalization-newtons-line-theorem.html

Best regards Dao Thanh Oai — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fractal routing, or
The seal of Solomon in three dimensions - A fractal pattern for massive parallel architecture programs is currently up for deletion, perhaps not surprising. Is this something to do with routing, or anything to do with mathematics, or is it just one guy's opinions and ideas? I suspect it fails WP:GNG but I'm entirely unfamiliar with the (possible) topic area so I don't really know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe keep Dao's six point circle with some reasons as follows

 * First reason:

Please see 1; that time the Dao's six point circle be delete with main reason: The result only appear in Cut the knot Dao's Six Point Circle and Kimberling center, X(5569)= Center of the Dao six point circle and Dao's six point circle didn't appear on a journal. But now Dao's six point circle also appear in a journal, this result is special case of theorem 3.1, in the article of this theorem.


 * Secon reason:

Dr. David Eppstein also said that: The Kimberling/ETC reference is reliable for this sort of thing, but...... 1. Please note that you can see in [Kiberling center part 4], have 1097 triangle centers but only have 10 center of circle which name after person(name after notability). Detail:

X(5453) = CENTER OF HATZIPOLAKIS CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5569) = CENTER OF THE DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE (with three independent proofs)

X(5607) = CENTER OF 1st POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5608) = CENTER OF 2nd POHOATA-DAO-MOSES CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5944) = CENTER OF HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now until now)

X(5955) = CENTER OF INNER HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5956) = CENTER OF OUTER HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(5974) = CENTER OF THE HUNG-FEUERBACH CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(6045) = CENTER OF MOSES-HUNG CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

X(6048) = CENTER OF MOSES HULL CIRCLE (has no proof until now)

But in 10 circles name after person above, only have Dao six point circle have synthetic proof (three  independent proofs for this circle), 9 circle have no proof until now.


 * Third reason: van Lamoen circle also is special case of theorem theorem 3.1. van Lamoen circle appear in wiki

--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * David, no admin seems to have been willing to speedy it for several days, so I  Listed it  at afd  for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Article for deletion Concave hull
Hello,

You may interested in the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Concave hull‎. I think that you have more competences on this subject that the other editors of these pages, including myself.

Sincerely D.Lazard (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

About Dao's theorem

 * Dear Dr. David Eppstein, please let me know as soon as possible what do you think with last form of Dao's theorem? keep or delete, if you think should delete I agree delete, if you think should keep I am agree keep too. Thank to You very much

Delsort
Apologies for the mis-sorted AfD. What delsort page would be appropriate for general topics in academia/research? —Swpbtalk 17:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For that one? WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science maybe. I don't know of one for academic research in general. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's perfect. —Swpbtalk 18:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dr David Eppstein is decided (keep or delete Dao's theorem)
Dear Dr.David Eppstein, Please read my comment:


 * delete. A bit late to this but whether it's the earlier version of the page before forking or the current dab-like page this doesn't belong, as a blatant attempt at self-promotion, using WP to promote your research long before its picked up by reliable sources.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Values of JohnBlackburne's comment above? I think he no read all comment above at here. I think he don't has knowledgeable of classical geometry, he did not check these theorem, did not read the articles, so may he let "delete" or "keep" is not values. I think he should remember Forum geometricorum is a journal which has indexed in Mathscinet, and Crux Mathematicorum is the best solution of solving Journal in the world(the journal is member of Canadian Mathematical Society). On the other hand now, never publish a theorem of classical geometry in Acta Numerica, Annals of Mathematics or a high another journal of mathematic...... And these theorem are generalization of famous theorem of classical geometry with reasons above why delete? on the other hand WP:PROMO are not reasons to delete an article. And I didn't know wiki don't want I post so I post, If I know wiki didn't want I post so I never post, and never said to you that I am Dao Thanh Oai. I research geometry to relax because I am electrical system engineer, I have no received money from geometry(In three years research). Original of my idea post at here because I want to share. Now these result publish in some best journal of classical geometry, and these theorems are generalization of famous theorem of classical geometry why delete? And I didn't name these theorem after my name. I name these theorem from title of these paper ? why delete. I waiting Dr David Eppstein comment again, Dr David Eppstein is decided. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Triangulation (disambiguation) revert-why the revert?
Dear David Eppstein

re (Undid revision 629746429 by DadaNeem (talk) there should be only one page beginning with "Triangulation (disambiguation)")

Please explain-I am adding to the existing Triangulation (disambiguation) in a way I believe is constructive as I have done 1000s of times in the past. Maybe one of us is missing something?--DadaNeem (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You added two links to special pages that list all Wikipedia topics whose title starts with "Triangulation (disambiguation)". How many Wikipedia topics do you think there are that start with that precise string? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake-I intend to correct it to:

== See also ==
 * All pages with titles containing Triangulation
 * All pages with titles containing Triangulation

Does that make sense? --DadaNeem (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works a lot better. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
NorthAmerica1000 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

AI RfC
Got a feedback request service notice for this -- I've not time but thought you might be interested. EEng (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another one right up your alley. EEng (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already been participating in the associated FA review. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Shoulda figured. EEng (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Harcourt's theorem
I did not see any criteria at match this Harcourt's theorem notability. Did it really impact to next researches? Just two sources, show me how it is notable when it appeared on paper only. Alphama (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently even after being pointed to it in earlier messages you still haven't read WP:GNG. It has multiple sources (two is multiple), both reliably published, both covering the subject in nontrivial depth. (There is at least one more source "Harcourt's theorem via Salmon's lemma" but I haven't been able to track down a copy nor to determine whether it is also reliably published.) Anyway, this is extremely unimportant. Why are you wasting your and my time with it? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

University of California, Santa Barbara people -> alumni
I saw that you had moved this page and it's now a redirect. I was thinking of doing that prior to the prod, however since the page was split into two separate ones, how do you/did you determine which page was the one that "kept" the history? As you can see, the "people" page was split into an "alumni" page (which I'm currently updating) as well as a "faculty" page, both of which have that same history from the people page. Any rhyme or reason as to why the "alumni" page is the "winner"? – GauchoDude (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Had to pick one; which one was fairly arbitrary. The main reason for doing it that way was so that all the old page history wouldn't get lost (or made invisible) by deleting the old page name. It's the same reason that if you want to retitle a page, you're supposed to use the move command, not just copy and paste the info into a new title and delete the old one. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Collatz conjecture - deletion
Dear David,

You have removed the contribution I made to the page 'Collatz conjecture' on the grounds that you have considered these to be self-promotion. I would like to express my disappointment. I can certainly understand your concerns about these results not having been published or confirmed by someone else (but anyone interested can check these results to see they are correct I am sure) but I would have hoped that you would agree that it is certainly an interesting observation (which can be analytically proved in fact) that Collatz sequences starting with numbers of the form 2^n-1 and 2^nq-1 (n odd) always start generate n-1 odd numbers before an even number is encountered. For example the largest known prime number 257,885,161 − 1 generates 57,885,160 odd numbers before generating an even number (which is simply striking as a fact although not ground breaking). I just wanted to say that I had spent a lot of time obtaining these results/preparing these contributions and had only added them to share them with the community.

I would have been happy to address your concerns rather than my contributions being deleted on the grounds that they have been considered self-promotion; and I am sure you would have been disappointed too if you were in my place and be discouraged to make contributions in the future.

Kind regards,

Baris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bariskanber (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I already addressed part of this at User talk:intgr -- intgr [talk] 20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please help me unblock
Dear Dr David,

I am Dao Thanh Oai,

I am sorry because my english.

When I chat about delete of Dao's theorem.

I must using google translate to understand.

Google translate Notabinity (or Notabinity) mean from English to Vietnames is Danh Nhân,

Danh nhân mean: Name of me, person, people, ....

So some peoples said I promotion. But because I don't understand of policy of WP.

And don't understand what some peole said. Because google translate fail.

Please help me unblock. Because I very difficult when using my computer to read EnWiki.

Thank to You very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.228.164.195 (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I promise I never adit, never write anything in enWP. Help me unblock to I read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.228.164.195 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You can still read English Wikipedia even when you are blocked. So there is no need for an unblock that I can think of?


 * Please try editing the Vietnamese Wikipedia at https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trang_Ch%C3%ADnh --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Neuroepistemology Page
Hello David,

I was in the middle of editing the page "Neuroepistemology". I did not appreciate you retracting my new section heading because it was blank. Obviously, I was not going to leave the section empty. I am letting you know that I will be working on the page over a couple of weeks. Please try not to remove my work, as I am in the PROCESS of writing. I will not be adding a new section all at once.

Best regards, Michelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelleanngins (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. But do pay attention to the past history of that article, especially the way that it was stubbed back in January 2013 from being a giant mess of original research as well as the deletion discussion caused by that mess, and try to avoid repeating those mistakes. You might also want to look at the Wikipedia manual of style: your new section heading violates it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=630753412 your edit] to Claw-free permutation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * link = Ronald L. Rivest | title = Proceedings of FOCS | pages = 441–448 | date = 1984 }} and later in a more complete journal paper, {{cite journal | first1 = Shafi | last1 =

Apropos stack & Turing
cf. related talk page, 87.159.108.183 (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

三 on unary numeral system
While the line that I removed isn't itself false, I don't think it should be left as is. Etymologically, the character 三 did originate from a unary numeral system. However, it is no longer an example of a unary numeral system, as the Chinese numeral system has since evolved to be one that is not unary. Given the context, I don't think it fits, and should either be removed, moved, or edited to clarify this distinction.

-- Lrdwhyt (talk | contribs) 18:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the etymological meaning that was intended there, I think. Feel free to copyedit to clarify that point. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Triangular number
Dear Dr. Eppstein,

I'm writing to open a dialogue on the Triangular number page. You un-did the revision I made and commented that it is "off topic and un helpful". I must beg to differ. The present article discusses the digital root pattern, but fails to describe the relevance or source of the pattern. An issue the edit remedies. Further, it provides relevant multidisciplinary linkages to other related topics that the article lacks. As a materials scientist, and number theorist, I would argue that the edits are very relevant and key to understanding the origin of the symmetry pattern. Without the "why" of it, the digital root discussion is little more than a curious novelty.

Furthermore, the present state of the article is misleading and shows a lack of knowledge of congruent number theory. Specifically it states "In base 10, the digital root...", which is misleading since base 10 or mod 10 is positional number and the digital root is mod 9. I chose to clarify with my edits vs. rewriting the subject passage.

I would hope that you would appreciate the time spent to improve the content of the article and seek to understand the relevance and significance of the edits. Respectfully, your comments seem somewhat dismissive and could be more constructive. In my humble opinion the discussion on the digital requires improvement or should be removed entirely. Perhaps we can reach a happy medium. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proportions (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on using secondary RSs at "List of scientists opposing maintream assessment of global warming"
In the most recent AFD of a particular article, you made a comment that referenced "original research" or "WP:OR". I am sending this same message to every non-IP editor who metioned either character string in that AFD. Please consider participating in a poll discussion about adding secondary RSs to the listing criteria at that talk page. Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

About your "prime number" removal
Mr. Epstein: You have removed my important statement about prime numbers. I was several months deep into a research project concerning prime numbers before I happened to stumble across the information about one being considered prime in an important historical period (I found it in another place -- not Wiki!), so I do believe the information of my statement does need to be out there where folks can see it. I am a musician, not a mathematician, so I had initially relied on Wiki for my grounding in prime number theory.

It's hardly an archaic idea, by the way: Carl Sagan used one as being a prime number in his novel "Contact" as you may know. It is essentially for semantic reasons that 20th-century mathematicians began to remove one from their lists of prime numbers.

Did you read the paper in the reference? Caldwell, et al., have done an amazing service in gathering a historical and dynamic array of citations on this subject. We cannot always accept the "latest" viewpoint as being the only truth, especially when we are dealing with historical matters. In my project I was working on the era 1700-1750 in Germany, and I have now had to revise quite a bit of previous data.

With respect, therefore, I now ask that you restore my statement to the Wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrbodine (talk • contribs) 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The information is already out there, in the Prime number section. It did not need to be placed as the second sentence of the whole article, where its main effect would only have been to confuse readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633412131 your edit] to Block cellular automaton may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * toothpick sequence and its emulation by a block cellular automaton]] with the Margolus neighborhood

Good day,

The word amateur is not suitable for biography Shmatko https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Shmatko - he is not engaged in creativity in their spare time. He is not a an amateur - it's his profession. I would ask you to approach objectively and not write he is amateur. https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB --Rerter 2 (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but I have not changed whether the article calls him an amateur. All I did was to redo a spelling correction to his name that you undid. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am finding Lute88's behaviour in that article (not to mention his contribution history as a whole) somewhat alarming, and have left a not especially polite warning on his talk page. User:Rerter 2, I remind you not to engage in edit warring either; re-inserting an incorrect spelling of the subject's name is a big hint that you are clicking much too quickly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Revised Meshedness coefficient
Dear professor Eppstein, thank you so much for your corrections and advice on my very first Wikipedia effort, Meshedness coefficient. I revised and tried to address the notability issues by addressing the 'significant coverage' and 'secondary sources' guidelines, by adding some references which use this coefficient. As you might have noticed this term has significant coverage not in the graph theory by its general, but in the city street graphs, and less in water distribution networks. therefore, it might seem not to be not noticeable.

Meanwhile, following your suggestion to keep only to the definition, I tried not to go into the details of the application of this coefficient, keeping it to the purpose.

I would appreciate your review and comments. yours, Babak.jfard (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. It still seems to me like a very minor variant on the face number or circuit rank of the graph, but I think you have enough references to different people using this number to remove the notability tag as you have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Prime Number
Hi, I see you have edited this page - I'm in need of advice. A person has e-mailed (OTRS 2014111610010797) in asking why there are two "Further references" to the English Playwright Tom Stoppard, and I don't know why. The edit that added these bits was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_number&diff=281757092&oldid=281732199 - there is no mention of him within the article. Ron h jones (Talk) 02:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That edit didn't add or remove those references, it just changed their format. I think the answer is that this edit removed some text about Stoppard's play Arcadia (correctly, as it was off-topic) but neglected to remove the references. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I'll inform the correspondent. Ron h jones (Talk) 02:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Algorithmic complexity: bounded input size
Regarding revert at Time complexity – point taken that “logarithmic complexity” is not the best place for this.

The point about bounded input size meaning some factors are in practice constants is valuable though – thoughts on where best to put it and how to phrase it?

I’ve taken a shot at this revision of Analysis of algorithms, as that seems the more apt overall page, and elaborated with a concrete example (Timsort). WDYT?
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Linda Delibero
The previous version of this article was poorly and improperly sourced. This latest version is now significantly different than what was brought to AFD. Speedy now inapplicable. You need not reconsider, but it now meets several notability guidelines. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Highly efficient estimator
(About "Median") David, I am not sure the link to "Efficient estimator" fits. The phrase "highly efficient" probably shows that "efficient" is treated informally. Otherwise it is like "highly maximal element" (??) in a set. I do not see such informal treatment in our "Efficient estimator" article. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that word was used with the technical meaning of "requires few samples to get an accurate estimate" rather than as an informal synonym of "good". Do we have a better wikilink than efficient estimator for that technical meaning? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are pretty sure, then probably you should delete the word "highly" from the phrase "highly efficient", right?
 * "requires few samples to get an accurate estimate" is NOT the technical meaning, it is a kind of "good", since is based on the notion "few". Indeed, the "Efficient estimator" article does not contain the word "few".
 * Moreover: the usual (one-dim) median is NOT efficient for the normal distribution; not even asymptotically efficient; it is WORSE than the sample mean by a well-known coefficient. (See subsubsection "Efficiency" of section "Medians for samples" in "Median".) I guess that the "spatial median" is also not efficient (and not even asymptotically efficient) for the two-dim normal distribution (for the same reason). Experts surely know. I do not, but I feel "pretty sure" (in the sense of a high subjective probability). Anyway, for now the claim in the article sounds like "highly maximal element", doesn't it? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, more precisely, it might mean "requires within a constant factor of the optimal number of samples to get a desired level of accuracy". Of course, if that's the intended meaning then we need a source. Since you seem to be insisting that efficient estimator can only refer to something that uses exactly the optimal number of samples for a normal distribution (a highly strict notion of efficiency that makes no sense for robust statistics since we don't want to assume normality), what do you suggest as the correct wikilink for approximate efficiency in this sense? Your insistance that this is like the case of "highly maximal" or "very unique" is only because you are using a notion of efficiency that doesn't allow for any approximation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your feeling. This is exactly the problem: the technical term "efficient" is indeed very demanding: "Finite-sample efficient estimators are extremely rare" (quoted from "Efficient estimator"); this is the "official" terminology, followed by our "Efficient estimator" article; we may dislike it, but we cannot change the fact. No, I has no alternative wikilink (otherwise I would provide it immediately). A bit softer notion is "asymptotic efficiency", but you are right, it is still too demanding for robust statistics. By the way, do not think that I hate the median (and robust statistics); I do like them (and I had opportunities to recommend these to researchers). But we cannot establish our own terminology via Wikipedia. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Just passing by)
 * How about Efficiency (statistics)?
 * There’s relative efficiency of two procedures (or estimators), efficiency relative to an efficient estimator, etc.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does look like a better choice of wikilink. Of course, Boris might have the same issue with the text there, that it uses phrases like "more efficient estimator" rather than treating "efficient estimator" as an absolute. But at least it would allow these links (there's more than one in the median article) to go to an article on comparative efficiency rather than absolute efficiency. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the time you wrote this, I just implemented the proposal. I think this is the best we can do. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You missed another one on the same article but I got it. This is all somewhat bemusing to me because in my own research area "efficient" means something else again (having low time complexity, unrelated to sample complexity). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Category request
In light of your participation in the CFD discussion and your knowledge of mathematics, would you be willing to take a look at Category:0 (number) and Category:1 (number) to identify and relocate those articles that no longer belong under the new titles? Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think 1 is already ok but I'll take a look at 0. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Vani Hari at ANI
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

You took a complaint about an admin [Drmies] stifling ANI debate over admin bias in an article, whilst also [Drmies] being involved in that same bias in the article, then closed the thread within three hours as "mere content dispute". This is not about a content dispute! The content dispute was a week ago, and resolved fairly amicably on the talk: page, just as it's supposed to happen. Then Drmies comes alongs and blanks the lot, whilst simultaneously claiming at ANI that there's no such admin-facilitated whitewashing going on.

Why three hours? Why exclude this from reasonable discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * How am I involved? I don't think I've edited Vani Hari Oh, I see, "while also being involved" refers to Drmies. In any case, I closed this because my reaction on seeing this at ANI was "this is boring — there's no drama or call to action here." That felt like reason enough to close. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you didn't bother to read talk:Vani Hari, the deleted section, or the sources it linked to? You just thought, "Oh this is boring, I'll just close it anyway".
 * And admins wonder why they're held in such poor regard? 8-(   Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI threshold question
Having never opened a sock puppet investigation, I am curious to know what level of suspicious activity warrants opening a case. I suspect there is a puppet party at: Articles_for_deletion/The_Reform_Foundation. I see you opened a case on a neighboring AFD: Articles for deletion/Supernova (programming language) (2nd nomination) and would be interested in your opinion. Thanks, Vrac (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My usual first step would be to put not a vote near the top of the AfD, immediately following the nominator's statement, and (as has already been done in your case) to tag the comments with spa. I'd usually only file an SPI if I were pretty sure the commenters were really all the same person. In your case I think there's a strong possibility that they're different people associated with the organization and brought to the AfD by outside canvassing. Which if true is still problematic, but less so, because it's not deliberately deceptive and because there's a chance that if we're not too hostile to these new editors then some of them might stick around and become constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:James Maynard (mathematician)
Hi, David Eppstein! I think that James Maynard now meets WP:PROF because of the SASTRA Ramanujan Prize. Do you agree? Thanks! 189.6.207.12 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I saw your reply there. Can you help me to improve the article? Otherwise I will try to do it tomorrow, because now I'm going to sleep! Best wishes, 189.6.207.12 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources in Juan Pavón article
Hi, in the article Juan Pavón you added the "primary sources" banner: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Pav%C3%B3n&oldid=525803551

I have improved the references, and I'd like to request you to check it out now. If you agree, I'd want to remove the banner. If you don't agree, please advise me on any specific further changes that I should carry out. If you are too busy for getting into this, please refer me to someone who might help. Thanks a lot.--Samer.hc (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Damerau–Levenshtein distance page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=637557370 your edit] caused an ISBN error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F637557370%7CDamerau–Levenshtein distance%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reverting my post on unweighted bipartite matching
Hello Dr. Eppstein,

I respect your reasons for removing my algorithm for matchings in unweighted bipartite graphs. But I am making this post as part of a contribution to public knowledge component for a college course. I'm wondering, can you suggest a more appropriate place to post my material? Surely just because it is not optimal does not make it irrelevent?

Thanks, Pat Mendek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmendek (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think it is both novel and useful, you could try publishing it in an algorithms conference or journal. See WP:OR: Wikipedia should not be for publication of original research. If what you have is an implementation of an existing published algorithm that you think would be useful to people who need to compute matchings, there are various ways of publishing it in the open source community, for instance at github. My feeling on code in Wikipedia is that it should almost always be pseudocode rather than actual code, and should be written to help human readers understand an algorithm rather than to provide an implementation. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

A question on Latin Square Property
Hello, I've been exploring some concepts to understand Automorphism and Isomorphism, I posted a question in Talk under the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_square_property and I was hoping if you have a minute, you might give me a simple example or two showing how this works. I'm slowly self learning set theories, and I'm afraid I'm missing a concept in application, the example(s) would with hope, clear up my misconception.

I included a link to that page. If you could either comment on the talk, or actually include the examples in the article itself, I would be appreciative.

Thank you ahead of time for any consideration you can give me. Cyberchip (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Santosh Mehrotra
Dear Prof. Eppstein, could you have another look at this one and perhaps offer any advice? I knew of his work before seeing the Afd and am convinced he is sufficiently notable for wp. I have no coi. I have cut it down substantially. I think this sort of article is often created in ignorance of polies rather than maliciously. I would be inclined to cut down most of the book reviews that I've added to try to help with the Afd after the afd. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Dear Prof. Eppstein, I am writing to you in your capacity as an administrator was was involved in this debate. I was thinking of asking for a deletion review of the article on Santosh Mehrotra. My reading of this is that closure was incorrect as it did not reflect consensus of the debate given the timing of the contributions. The article has been salted. As per your wishes. I had thought I had removed all the ‎autobiographical material and rewritten the article in a more neutral tone and provided additional supporting references. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)) - PS I have contacted the deleting and salting administrator here: User_talk:Stifle (Msrasnw (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC))
 * Dear Prof. Eppstein, I am writing to you in your capacity as an administrator to remind you, in case you had forgotton, about this request for advice about this Afd and the resulting salting of this article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC))
 * I have to say I thought there were beginning to be indications that ACADEMIC might be satisfied -- though we weren't there yet. EEng (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But I can't do anything in my capacity as an administrator on this one. I !voted and so am WP:INVOLVED. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Prof. Eppstein, the problem as I see it is the article has been not only deleted but also salted as per your request. My querry is since your view was expressed on an earlier stage of the article when it was autobiographical and not sourced and your vote and suggestion for salting was used to decide on deletion you invovlment was in my view key to the making of a decision which was wrong. I think an article has been deleted and salted which need not have been. I would like the article unsalted and to do a new one like this(User:Msrasnw/Afdthings) rather than go through the whole Deletion Review stuff. Perhaps another Afd if peole felt it was needed. But if you recommend or would rather a deletion review I will try that. Sorry to bother you and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC))

DE, I think you know more about this than I do. User_talk:EEng EEng (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * At this point, to re-create the article, I think a DRV would be necessary. The strategy there should not be "the AfD was decided wrong" — that rarely works — and is especially unlikely to work in this case where there were more deletes than keeps and the keeps used very weak argumentation, basically WP:ITSNOTABLE without justification or reference to WP:PROF. Rather, what you need to show is that something is sufficiently different now from the version that was deleted so that the deletion arguments are no longer valid. In particular it would be necessary to clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that the subject passes some specific criteria of WP:PROF (at least one but preferably more than one), has no autobiographical elements, and is neutral and non-promotional in its wording. I'm not convinced by your arguments on this point at EEng's talk page — they seem less like a clear pass of any criterion and more like stretching to try to meet them — but ultimately it's the DRV commenters that you'd need to convince, not just me. Anyway, why is it so important that we have an article on Mehrotra? Even if your arguments for notability are valid, he's clearly a borderline case, one that won't cause much harm to not cover. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear Prof Eppstein, Thanks for your reply. I think I will wait and perhaps try to do a new article on Santosh Mehrotra in the more distant future - when there is more evidence - perhaps a higher h-index. It is true it won't cause much harm not to cover him on wikipedia. The only harm at the moment I can identify is my feeling I have had my work trying to, and in my view successfully, making the article suitable, not having been judged a worthy effort. I have been wasting my time. My feeling is he is sufficiently notable and has been deleted and salted as a kind of punishment for an attempt at self promotion. I view such attempts as often more innocent and understandable than many other editors here. This is not the first time I have had problems with deletiins and I know Deletion Review is time consuming and problematic. I seem to keep on finding problems with deletions in general where my feeling is people make quick and often ill informed judgements to delete and are unwilling to review and discuss things more fully and change their mind or views when more information is brought to the deabte. Perhaps I should stay away from AFDs. Anyway best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC))

DYK for Laves graph
The DYK project (nominate) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Fritz Laves
The DYK project (nominate) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for recent creation of AMS fellows pages
I noticed you added quite a few articles about women who are AMS fellows. Thank you for your contributions; the coverage of female mathematicians has been spotty, and this is a significant improvement. Brirush (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)