User talk:David Eppstein/2016b

Your GA nomination of Linear probing
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Linear probing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Binary search algorithm GA review
Thanks for all the work you've put into this review! Though I'm a pretty experienced editor (~29k edits over 11+ years), I have not participated in a GA review before, and haven't read the (no doubt extensive) documentation on the process yet.

I'd just like your advice on where best to discuss this article at this point. I assume that I should be contributing to the regular Talk page? with the GA1 reserved for reviewers?

The gist of my comment is that I find that this article has many flaws, and I'm surprised anyone thinks it's a "good article" according to the Good Article Criteria. In particular, besides the points you've mentioned, the writing is unclear and wordy (fails 1a) in many places, and it often veers not just into unnecessary detail, but even adjacent topics (fails 3b), primarily by confusing the binary search algorithm with the general topic of search algorithms and data structures. Well, enough for now -- where should is it best to talk about things like this? --Macrakis (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have significant additional concerns that you think are serious enough that they should block GA status, the review page is probably a good place. There's no requirement of being the initial reviewer to contribute there. If you are trying to coordinate changes to the article in response to the review, then the article talk page is probably a good place. But really, either place would work for either purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Book embedding
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Book embedding you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

mary j koss criticism
how its citing the opinions of MRA's from an MRA website against the rules. its valid criticism. issue my links like to the 1993 paper where she said the quoted text i added in my criticism section. its valid criticism of a statement she made on the subject being addressed

mary j koss criticism
how its citing the opinions of MRA's from an MRA website against the rules. its valid criticism. issue my links like to the 1993 paper where she said the quoted text i added in my criticism section. its valid criticism of a statement she made on the subject being addressed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_P._Koss&type=revision&diff=713600956&oldid=713599850

How do I contest "woman mathematicians" as a category?
As a "woman mathematician" I believe the term is out of date and potentially offensive. "Woman" should not clarify or qualify "mathematician" in any way.
 * The place for that sort of discussion is WP:CFD. But I suspect any attempt to remove the category outright is likely to be laughed off. Whether it should be "women mathematicians" or "female mathematicians" is a matter for more serious debate, already in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Exponential_function
 E Eng  04:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Linear probing
The article Linear probing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Linear probing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your reverts of 251 (number) and 252 (number)
About your summary on 251: "...long bulleted lists of unsourced properties ...", and your summary "Undo addition of boring and unsourced properties and deprosification" on 252 which left me perplex: Now, out of respect for your work in other pages, which I find great, I do not want to start an edit war. But I would appreciate if you could undo your reverts. Thanks. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no definition of ""deprosification" in any language. Google could only find 1 match, in a meta-physic poem, in French. Maybe you care to explain what you meant to say.
 * Some of these properties came directly from 250 (number). The information was split between 2 pages. I just consolidated it in 1 article. Because you reverted one, but not the other, you lost some of that information.
 * There might have been unsourced properties listed, but unlike other type of articles, where an unsourced statement might be just wrong or subject to Point Of View, these types of statements in number articles are completely verifiable by doing the same research.
 * If everyone was going around deleting what they consider boring, there wouldn't much left in Wikipedia. Just because it might be boring to you doesn't mean someone isn't interested in it.
 * Bulletted lists serve one good purpose. They make information easier to read. The way you left the pages is much worse. A prose style is good on other subjects when ideas are connected from one statement to another, but typically, with numbers, properties are unrelated, and a list of bullet points make them easier to read.
 * If there is a particular issue that you want to revert, please be specific, instead of doing a block revert.
 * I did make a small mistake on 251, where prime number is mentioned twice, and a [ is missing on the second mention. Sorry.
 * Re "deprosification": see WP:USEPROSE, "Prose is preferred in articles". Re sourcing: no, every claim that could reasonably be challenged needs a source. And re interestingness: my usual criterion is that the property should be tagged as "nice" in OEiS and that the number should be within the first five values of this nice property. So 251 being prime and 252 being composite are boring, because they're very far along on the lists of numbers with those properties, and the other properties you added look boring too. One could add to 251 that it is the sum of 225 and 26, of 197 and 54, and of 111 and 140 — it would be true, but boring. The same goes for the material you added. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Maryna Viazovska
Hi, Professor David Eppstein. I am watching closely the article about her. Regarding the edit summary "P.S. request Andriy Bondarenko, winner of Vasil A. Popov Prize in Approximation Theory (there is article in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Popov)", I think that anastasiya is not Andarenko nor know him, but wanted to request the creation of the article about him (and did it in a very weird way, haha). About the "Serhiivna" vs "Sergeevna", I don't know, but I got the impression that the Ukrainians prefer the spelling "Serhiivna", and the Russians prefer "Sergeevna". I think that maybe in the English Wikipedia we should prefer the one that is close to how it is pronounced, so that English speakers will pronounce it closely to how it is actually done. Unfortunately, I don't know Ukrainian or Russian to know how it is. :( Best regards, 189.6.158.111 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It is taking so long for someone to close the discussion. :(
 * I think that rather than arguing about what the proper transliteration of Ukrainian should be, we should pay attention to how Viazovska actually spells her own name. Even for the Russian variant, there are multiple acceptable transliterations (Sergeevna, Sergeievna, Sergeyevna, etc), so choosing which one to use is more a matter of personal preference than correct orthography. Unfortunately, I can't find any example where she spells out the patronymic in the Roman alphabet. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Maybe it would be better to leave the uncontroversial "S.". By the way, I am not the other editor involved. 189.6.158.111 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could leave "S." in Roman but spell out the patronymic in Cyrillic? That seems a little odd, but the Cyrillic spelling is the only one we have sources for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking of it. It's odd, but at least it is uncontroversial and it's all sourced. 189.6.158.111 (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, it's not about her preference. If she holds a Ukrainian passport, then her official patronymic could not be spelled as "Sergeevna". It's either "Serhiivna" or (older form of transliteration) "Serhiyivna". This is determined by one of two standards: KMU 2010 (Serhiivna) or BGN/PCGN 1965 (Serhiyivna). As she spells her last name as Viazovska, then the standard is clearly KMU 2010 (it would have been "Vyazovska" under BGN/PCGN 1965). KMU 2010 is also the official transliteration of names of Ukrainian citizens. So it's generally preferred by Wikipedia.
 * P.S. Viazovska probably speaks Russian, but if she preferred her name to be transliterated from Russian, than it would be spelled as "Marina V*azovskaya". And using Ukrainian transliteration of name (Maryna Viazovska) with Russian variant of patronymic (Sergeevna) doesn't make any sense for this pair of languages. Nobody does that. --Amakuha (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds convincing, but I still think we'd be better off relying on actual sources than making inferences. I'm curious: is "Maryna" also the KMU 2010 transliteration? The usual English spelling of that name (and I think the spelling in most Roman-alphabet languages) would be "Marina". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Maryna" is the correct transliteration of her name (according to both standards). You see, her name is pronounced as in Ukrainian, and  in Russian. The difference in Russian and Ukrainian transliterations reflects this phonetic difference. --Amakuha (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was, probably, incorrect… Her patronymic could be spelled differently under two older short-lived standards that were official in Ukraine between 2004 and 2010 (the time, when Maryna probably received her international passport). Thanks for your reservation, that proved me wrong! Now we have a source for her patronymic transliteration. --Amakuha (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Format for authorlinks
Many thanks for clarifying this. I wondered how to do it correctly. I will try to fix the ones I changed.--Toploftical (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks — I've already fixed about half of them but I'll let you deal with the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Still working on it. I did not have time to finish yesterday.  Thanks for your help--Toploftical (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
For your rigourous, WP:VERIFY expectations at Ogi Ogus. I found plagiarism and other deep problems there, from one particular editor (…123, see Talk there), and gave the article as much time as I could, before tagging and departing. The tags, though seemingly over-abundant, correlate with the depth of the issues I unearthed in about an hour of time (including the copy-and-paste material from that editor). My view, the article needs a top to bottom scholarly review, checking sources against content—the DOB, for goodness sake, was not in the source cited!—as well as a thorough copyedit. And all of the apparently hyped claims made for the importance of his ideas need review against scholarly as opposed to popular press sources. For you, or others, to carry on. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. UntiI I departed academia for private practice, I did my public service at Wikipedia as well. Now it is usually a distraction, as I seek information on subjects related to the startup work. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew M. Gleason
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew M. Gleason you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And after only four brisk months, too!  E Eng  02:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did at least break into the top five backlogged nominations, but it looks like I need to try harder if I want to win it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

How about the Shrinks book advertising at Ogas?
I don't want to be the only one moving and deleting nonsense. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for all the work you're doing. That article is still a mess, but you're making it better. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Always darkest before the dawn. Cheers, and keep up your scrutiny as well. I may contest some, but if pushed, respect your history and efforts. I am but passing… Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gleason
Thanks for your continued work, and let me know if I can do anything. Don't know if I mentioned that I was in touch with "Mrs." Gleason a few years ago and she asked me to pass on her thanks.  E Eng  19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like mostly there are a small number of requested edits in the biography section (see the GA review for details). They shouldn't be hard to handle but it wouldn't bother me if you get to some of them before I do. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew M. Gleason
The article Andrew M. Gleason you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Andrew M. Gleason for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Andrew M. Gleason
The article Andrew M. Gleason you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew M. Gleason for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Linear probing
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
I reverted your personal attack in the Academics Notability Talk...it appears you've been active on here a long time so should know better...it's awkward too as I go to your "user page" and immediately see that you have a personal stake in the discussion in that you have a personal Wikipedia article along the lines being discussed...and now that you've behaved inappropriately there it kind of discredits any contributions by you in that thread.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks "content not contributor" 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And I've restored it, as far from anything justifying removal (and fully justified, BTW -- you are indeed a crank grinding an axe).  E Eng  14:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the restoration. But I was serious about disengaging: I don't intend to add any more to that thread. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Worry not, chaos will remain at bay nonetheless.  E Eng  20:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Book embedding
The article Book embedding you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Book embedding for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

About an article on another wiki
Sorry for asking for your help regarding a subject not related to the English Wikipedia, but to the Portuguese Wikipedia. By the rules of the English Wikipedia, would pt:Lista de municípios do Brasil por altitude (if translated to English) be accepted or would it be deleted? I don't know how to defend it on pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Lista de municípios do Brasil por altitude. I don't even know the rules there (there are so many), so I thought of creating one on the English Wikipedia if it gets deleted there (if the rules here allow the existence of such lists). I don't know, but I think that they may be different from the ones from the Portuguese Wikipedia... 189.6.213.242 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The en Wikipedia has several such lists, such as List of South American cities by elevation. That said, each different language's Wikipedia has its own notability rules, so arguing that it should be kept there because it would be notable here doesn't seem likely to work. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, did you read my message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women scientists? I have an interest in biographies of mathematicians, and I would be willing to help you in this one. 189.6.213.242 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw it, yes. If nobody wants to create the article directly within a couple days, maybe I'll try it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I am going to sleep now. Good bye. 189.6.213.242 (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Congrats
on reaching 100K edits. Impressive.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Curve-shortening flow
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Curve-shortening flow you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark viking -- Mark viking (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Curve-shortening flow
The article Curve-shortening flow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Curve-shortening flow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark viking -- Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on your GA article!
Hi David,

Congratulations on getting Curve-shortening flow to Good Article status! I've been informally following the development of the article for months and it has been instructive and inspiring to watch. While they were outside the purview of the GA review, I also appreciated the new articles you created to support this one. Well done. --Mark viking (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for the thorough and helpful review. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikilawyering
Hi there! You and I disagree, but that doesn't mean we should carry our our disagreement at a personal level. You have chosen to call my point of view (twice) in edits as 'wikilawyering'. That's defined at WP:WL as:
 * Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy
 * Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
 * Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
 * Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions

It also says there that "The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations...those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous."

It further says: "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term."

I would be grateful therefore if you could provide such an explanation in the light of the guidelines set out at WP:WL. Or you may care on reconsideration to withdraw the use of the term. In any case I refer you to the principle of WP:AGF.

With best regards, Smerus (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Does a multiparagraph post, with bulletlist, reciting the definition of wikilawyering and ancillary verbiage, then demanding a "brief explanation" of why the poster might be a wikilawyer, count as unintentional (or, I suppose, possibly intentional) self-parody?  E Eng  13:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess I should apologize to Smerus for ignoring his demand. I got lost in the wall of text and didn't even see it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am grateful, and apologise in turn for going over the top in my comments above.--Smerus (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On a hilltop in Italy we assembled young Wikipedia editors from all over the world... to bring you this message. Unfortunately they all ended up at Arbcom anyway, and were indefinitely blocked. Now they hang out at Wikipediocracy.  E Eng  17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Teaching young folk to sing is a noble ambition. Unfortunately as an old Wikipedia editor I don't qualify for such tuition.--Smerus (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 184
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rule 184 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chalst -- Chalst (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this template to your page.

Buster Seven   Talk  13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 08:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Meigu Guan
Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Vitalik Buterin
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Vitalik Buterin &mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Minimum and minimal
What do you mean here? As far as I know, "minimal" is the adjective ("the smallest"), whereas "minimum" is the noun ("the smallest amount"). So that "minimal enclosing ball" is "the smallest enclosing ball". Should the "minimum enclosing ball" in that article mean something different? And if yes, why? (A "minimum-enclosing ball" would mean a "ball enclosing the minimum", which might make sense in optimization problems but apparently not in this context.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Typically, "minimum" means "the smallest" but "minimal" means "unable to be made smaller by local changes". So a "minimal enclosing ball" would be one that can't be continuously deformed while shrinking its radius. It happens to be the same as the minimum for this particular problem (that is, there are no local minima in the space of enclosing balls) but it's a lot more complicated of a concept. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this a special terminology in some particular field? (I haven't seen this distinction before, though I'm not a mathematician.) Could you please give me some references where it is defined? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Where "some particular field" means mathematics, yes. See e.g. maximal element, maximal clique (same distinction for max vs min), Stationary point, or even Mathematics of Sudoku for examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

kawarabayashi article
Is that version some big specific problems? And at kakutani's theorem,please prove that source is false.--Takahiro4 --Takahiro4 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At Kakutani's theorem (geometry), I read the source you listed, and it didn't include the claim you made. At Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi, you are adding material claiming that he is the best researcher at certain conferences and journals that is not supported by any source and that violates WP:PEACOCK. At dodecahedral conjecture you straight-up plagiarized your source. When not copying your text from someone else it is generally quite ungrammatical and badly punctuated. And although not included in the edits of the last couple of days, you have regularly been making a total mess of Péter Frankl that others such as have had to clean up. Frankly, I don't think the changes you have been making are improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Your current edit-warring to keep out 's expansion of pi also doesn't seem like a good idea to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely it is written at that source(kakutani page=60).And also in the case of ken-ichi,japanese source has more information than english version.This is generally correct about japanese people.And you can read present version.All edits which I did are correct,and I never fight against consensus.Next about peter frankl,although peter frankl is friend with ron graham, present version is that frankl is frined with erdos.This is completely reverse fact.And this is that DAJF did.So peter frankl is like a comedian,actually he is talent,was a mathematician.You can see his performance. His article does not become stereotype mathematician's article. And I also can say about thurston's questions.You called badly source which is written by JSM ex president kojima sadayoshi which is an interviewer of thurston and majoring topology.And this source has more information about thurston and thurston's question solver "ohshika".And I could not find better en-source than this.

There is the answer about thurston's controvirsial.Ahlfors measure conjecture, Density theorem for Kleinian groups ,Ending lamination theorem,Tameness theorem, Marden's conjecture, these are all thurston questions.It is said that thurston finish "foliated structure".Thurston considered that mathematicians returned and connected categories of some mathematics by these questions --Takahiro4 (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Don Patinkin edit
I think you undid my previous edits. No source was added because I'm the source, first person narrative. He was my cousin. My grandfather was born in Poland, his first cousin. The whole family came over together. The source that says they were from Belarus is wrong. If I can find it documented in second person narrative, I'll add it. Trust me, the family is from Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.203.43 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This site is kept by a family member in Israel that's done all of our genealogy: https://www.geni.com/people/Albert-Patinkin/6000000003954142969 You'll notice that he's mentioned in the section where it says children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.203.43 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS for Wikipedia's sourcing requirements for biographies. They are strict, and do not allow personal reminiscences or web sites, only publications with some level of editorial control. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Report about lorand
The information about Eotvos lorand mathematical contest was originally from peter frankl.And I got it,your misunderstanding was from[|eotvos lorand uninversity].You thought that this university was founded by eotvos lorand in 1635.--Takahiro4 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. That interpretation is, like much of what you write, incorrect. The sentence that you added to Loránd Eötvös, and the place you added it, combined to give the meaning that Lorand's father founded the math contest (which he did not do). One could charitably assume that the sentence was merely badly misplaced, and that you intended the pronoun in it to refer to Lorand himself, in which case your sentence would mean that Lorand founded the math contest (but that is still untrue). The actual truth is that someone else (or rather a society) founded the contest and named it after Eötvös, something very different from what you wrote. Also, that was not an event from Eötvös' life and you should not have placed it in an article section about his life, in the paragraph dealing with his early life, as you did. But even after correcting all these huge mistakes that you made, by moving the sentence to where it belongs, and rewriting it to state that the contest was named after Eötvös not founded by him, there is still a problem of emphasis. There are many things named after Eötvös, of which the contest is far from the most important. Why only list that one? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Because Eotvos contest(kurschak) is origin of math competition.I wonder that there was rather the article of kurschak contest than eotvos contest.--Takahiro4 (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In 1894 baron Roland Eötvös was asked to serve as minister of education in the Hungarian government, to help

the acceptance of civil rights and religious freedom in the Hungarian Parliament. The Hungarian Mathematical and Physical Society decided,# I called this "produce",and although I think that I couldn't use "found".But even in the case of "found",especially I don't feel strange.Your thought is a bit wrong that eotvos roland math compe is not important by the reason of no wiki article. --Takahiro4 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't write "not important", I wrote "far from the most important". Having a major university named after you has to be much more important than a mathematics contest, no matter how important that mathematics contest might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cyclic graph" sense not misplaced; rather worth to move up.
Hi, David!

Since you're fairly active both in "pure" graph theory and in related theory for graph algorithms, I'm sure that you know about Stanisław Radziszowski's Dynamic survey of small Ramsey numbers (in the EJC); and I find it highly probable that you know him (at least from conferences, if you have not cooperated with him in research). Now, this ds1 (in its older versions) is old (and, compared with you, so am both I and Stanisław). I do not know how interested you are in Ramsey theory; and I do not know if you've studied ds1. However, if you did, you may have noted that Stanisław has a rather broad overview of the field; quite apart from his own contributions, both old and more recent. (You have it here.)

The ds1 does not define all its concepts in detail. Stanisław takes for granted that its readers are into standard graph terminology. In particular, when he states that
 * "Cycle (or circular) graphs are often ysed for Ramsey graph constructions"

(ds1 p. 5, (g)), he does not define cyclic graph; he takes for granted that any qualified reader knows that they are exactly the graphs WP defines as circulant graph.

I think that is wrong; and I'm also not sure that "Cycle (or circular)" isn't a misprint for "Cycle (or circulant)". In the paragraph about these graphs, he refers to some articles by Harborth and Krause, who I think uses the term "circulant graph". However, Stanisław himself has called them "cycle graph" in research articles, too.

I find it rather self-evident that our cyclic graph dab should include also the sense Radziszowski takes for granted all qualified graph theoreticians should understand. Since found out that MathWorld uses "cyclic graph" in the sense "not acyclic graph" (i.e., "non-forest"), this should also be given. (As you can see, Flosfa recently linked from Cycle graph (disambiguation) to the cyclic graph dab, seemingly without noticing your reversal. Except, that that dab page is a redir to Cyclic (mathematics), and that the latter is declared to be "a list, not a dab" by . Thus, it is all a bit confused.) JoergenB (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the terminology does seem to be used quite inconsistently by different sources. The point of my recent edits, though, was that the articles themselves should focus on specific concepts rather than nomenclature, per WP:NOTDICT. Anyway, one reason for saying that certain titles are not disambiguation pages are that the rules for disambiguation pages are often very strict and don't allow including what one logically wants to include. So in this case we have a disambiguation page at Cycle (disambiguation) but also a list article at Cyclic (mathematics) and another at Cyclic graph, as well as actual articles at Cycle graph and Cycle (graph theory). In the Cyclic graph case, I think the main concept concerns types of graphs defined by their cycles — this would exclude circulant graphs despite Radziszowski's wording, which is why I moved that line to the see also section.
 * As for your other questions: I am interested in Ramsey theory (though I haven't contributed much to it) but I don't think I've met Radziszowski. I have no theory on whether he used variant wording deliberately or as a typo, but I agree with you that he clearly means circulants. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, that Cycle graph (disambiguation) is defined as a dab (non-ambiguously:-), see Talk:Cycle graph (disambiguation)), while Cyclic (mathematics) is supposed to be a list. However, the first page is a redir to the second one.  Thus, you cannot apply different sets of rules for "this dab" and "this list", unless you restrict the page's content to what the union of these sets of rules mandates.
 * I do not know the rationale for calling circulant graphs cyclic; but they are exactly the graphs having automorphisms which are cyclic (viewed as vertex permutations). JoergenB (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cycle graph (disambiguation) does not exist as a separate page. As you say, it is a redirect to Cyclic (mathematics), not currenly a dab. This is probably in violation of WP:INTDABLINK or one of the other picky rules about disambiguation pages.
 * Also, a small correction: they are the graphs on which a cyclic group acts transitively. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that the talk page is not redirected: Yes, probably a violation of some rules.
 * The "correction" is not a correction, but an equivalent statement. Recall that a permutation on a finite set in general is called "a cycle" or "a cyclic permutation" if it is representable as just one cycle in its cycle decomposition (which I here demand to be explicit, with no implicit 1-cycles, yielding the second variant of "cyclic permutations"); and that graph automorphisms are defined as vertex permutations mapping edges to edges.  As you see directly, a graph automorphism (a.k.a. graph symmetry) generates a vertex transitive cyclic subgroup of the automorphism group if and only if this automorphism has just one cycle in its (explicit) cycle decomposition. JoergenB (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Vi Hart edit
You removed a spurious "sel" from Vi Hart's "other names", and wondered where it came from. Oddly enough, the history shows it came from you, at 19:01, 28 August 2015. You were changing a "themself" to "themselves", and must have accidentally typed part of the new word in the wrong place :-) Darrah (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking this down! That reassures me that the removal was a correct edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Revisions to Travelling Salesman Problem
Hi David, I have to admit a lack of familiarity with the processes of Wikipedia, so my apologies if I messed up on protocol. A few months ago, I was reviewing the Travelling Salesman Problem and noticed, within it, a section about a variant of the problem called The Generalized Traveling Salesman Problem (which was the focus of my dissertation in 1987). The section indicated that some researchers had found a transformation of the GTSP into a standard TSP and cited a 2002 conference proceeding. Unfortunately, the authors of that paper did not do a thorough literature review and, if they had, they would have realized the same transformation (actually a better, more general one) had been published in 1993 by Charles Noon (me) and James Bean (my thesis advisor) in the journal INFOR. I made edits to the page to correct the attribution and then I later saw the edits were reversed by you. I'm curious as to why and, also, what we need to do to correct the page. - Thanks, Chuck Noon (cnoon@utk.edu). The GTSP transformation cite is given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_TSP_problem Cnoonphd (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorcha Faal
Hi Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:

In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:

In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.

Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса—‌Википедия and Trud with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie" and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Curve-shortening flow
Hello! Your submission of Curve-shortening flow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Curve-shortening flow
— Maile (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ping
I took a whack at your comments at the GAN on Ann Bowling, pinging you that I did so (and thank you for reviewing). Montanabw (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)  Ah, and adding a link to the review Talk:Ann_T._Bowling/GA1. Thanks Montanabw (talk)  20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Directed acyclic graph
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Directed acyclic graph you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusing tag status of Kunihiko Kodaira
I agree we have a problem here. There was an enigmatic reference to "personal problems", which was tagged "confusing". Takahiro4 first removed the tag, with an edit comment of unclear meaning mentioning "WW2". After a bit of to and fro, he removed this enigmatic bit, and the tag, which strikes me as quite reasonable, so there really is no cause for a tag. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Takahiro4 has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues. But in this case the removal of both the passage and the tag seems reasonable enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Rule 184
I'm pleased to pass this article in my GA review: congratulations, you obviously put in substantial work into the piece. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 184
The article Rule 184 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rule 184 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chalst -- Chalst (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

When you think the theorem is nice please put in English wiki
Dear Dr. David Epstein,

When you think the theorem is nice please put in English wiki

http://mathoverflow.net/questions/234053/daos-theorem-on-six-circumcenters-associated-with-a-cyclic-hexagon

https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%8Bnh_l%C3%BD_%C4%90%C3%A0o_v%E1%BB%81_s%C3%A1u_t%C3%A2m_%C4%91%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng_tr%C3%B2n

Thank to You very much,

Dao Thanh Oai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.189.226.37 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstract data types
With respect to ADTs the set of real numbers seemed a bit obscure as an initial example definition. A stack definition appeared later but I attempted to give a simpler initial ADT generalisation based around the principal of stack of plates, stack of bricks, stack of things. The Stack is the ADT, the type of what is stacked is the abstract part. The ADT relating directly to the abstract organisation. ADTs usually confuse and a simple generalisation seemed beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.78.91 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For future reference, the context for this is Abstract data type, and specifically Special:Diff/721769991 and Special:Diff/721772911. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Partition refinement
Thank you for the Partition refinement! If you are familiar with matter, at least one demonstration would help non-technical readers to understand topic.

Based on page, it can be used with graphs. Graphs examples are intuitive without graph terminology. Could you please add "Example" section to the Partition refinement?

Some other data structures were explained step-by-step. I think one example wouldn't harm an article. Ushkin N (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see how that might be helpful. In the meantime I also have an implementation at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/PartitionRefinement.py (see also the lexbfs and dfa minimization implementations at other files in http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/PADS/, based on this data structure). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent nom of John con Neumann under MilHist question
There is a current review of John von Neumann taking place for GA under Military History. Could I ask you to glance at it? Should the article be reviewed at this level without any math type editors being involved? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I'll take a look. I also left a pointer to the GA review at WT:WPM in case some other mathematics editors might be interested. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with the article. I welcome any assistance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Languishing...
Hi, you started a GAN review of Ann T. Bowling and I've answered all your questions (with a few clarification questions of my own). Want to pop over there and continue the review? Montanabw (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was waiting for changes for the previous round to settle (as they seem to have last Saturday) and also dealing with off-wiki business, but I plan to get back to it soon once I have another sufficiently large chunk of time and energy to devote to it. By this weekend, at the latest. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I should be around over the weekend to answer any further inquiries you have.  Montanabw (talk)  17:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Answered your replies to date, looks like you needed to look at a bit more.  Montanabw (talk)  08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Directed acyclic graph
The article Directed acyclic graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Directed acyclic graph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Widest path problem
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Widest path problem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Oshwah -- Oshwah (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Borůvka's algorithm:
Thanks David for being so on top of it.

> (Undo good faith edits — the usual version of Boruvka adds an edge for all components at once, and by doing so reduces the #components by a factor of two in linear time. If you only do one component, the time analysis doesn't work.)

I am kind of new to wikipedia. A student gave me this algorithm in a project. I did not like it. And then found it here. Yes, sorry I did think I should change the time complexity too. Is your doubling version just historical? I was thinking if you handled "Each Component", then actually you could get one component in one step. ei each node is initially a component, so each is handled, so each is connected to the next in a line. I was not sure why the precondition restricted to distinct weights. And the code checking each edge for each node seemed more cumbersome than needed. I also like the fact that Kruskal or Prim are all specializations of the more general algorithm the way I wrote it. But then as you said, it is no longer Boruvka's version. I however and not attached to and am happy to follow your judgement. All the best Jeff Edmonds

I had four ~, but it said "unsigned". Let me try again to sign. Sorry for my fumblings JeffAEdmonds (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 14:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffAEdmonds (talk • contribs)
 * The point is that in one pass through the entire graph (linear total time) you can find the best edge out of every component. Then by adding all of these edges to the forest, one gets half the number of trees one had before. So the total time is O(m log n): O(m) per pass, O(log n) passes. If you pick out a single component and find only its best outgoing edge, though, the amount of time you spend looking for that edge may be too high — I think it would be ok if you could find the best edge in time O(mk/n) where m=current # edges, n=current #vertices, and k=component size, but there's no good reason to expect the number of edges you have to examine to be this small. The general algorithm you want to describe (pick an arbitrary component and add the best edge out of it, however you found that edge) is called the "blue rule" by Tarjan in his book Data Structures and Network Algorithms; Boruvka is a special case of it. (There's also a red rule that starts with the whole graph, repeatedly finds a cycle, and removes the heaviest edge of the cycle; see reverse-delete algorithm for an example of an algorithm using it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

On assuming good faith...
Hi David Eppstein, The content & tenor of your comment at WP:RSN is indicative of a failure to assume good faith, and borders on personal attack. It would be appreciated if you would take a more collegial & collaborative approach as we attempt to work toward a consensus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC) I am confident that, if we remain civil, we will be able to reach a compromise which both satisfies the concerns which you have raised and the concerns which the original IP raised w.r.t. original research. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a comment about content, prefaced with the same words you used to address me. What part of that do you consider uncivil? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Holistically: The repeated use of the second person possessive pronoun, which shifts focus from the content to the contributor, and the accusation of intent or personal preference that is conveyed within the comment. I am happy to acknowledge that there may be WP:ENGVAR differences which are contributory to my reading.

DYK for Bilinski dodecahedron
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Directed acyclic graph
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How to recreate an article previously deleted.
ChanakaW (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)My Article on Seetha I. Wickremasinghe was deleted because of not followed Wikipedia guidelines.So After that I followed the standards and recreated the Article Again.But I have to include the some previous details.Please help me to do that needfully.Many Thanks .....
 * It was deleted again because you recreated it after a previous discussion came to an agreement that the topic was not suitable for Wikipedia at this time. Please abide by this decision and stop trying to create it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Done (.) (?)
Just letting you know that I think all your comments at Ann T. Bowling have been addressed, I didn't see anything you wanted me to do, so inquiring if it's ready to pass GAN or did I miss one of your comments? Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought there were still issues in the "Genetic disease and equine coat color research" for which you had replied in the review but never actually fixed in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd either fixed it all or my explanation was such that you had no further issues. If there is stuff hanging, I was waiting for you to accept or reject or state further, so go for it.  That review is getting to be a wall of text (neither of our faults, it's just a thorough review).  Basically, me and my eyes are over 50 and I'm looking at the diffs to spot your comments, so if I had a "is this better?" or a "here's why I did that" that you didn't respond to, well... tag, you're it!   Montanabw (talk)  06:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problematic "At one time" phrasing for the cream-LWS misconception, with its lack of support from the sources, remains, and your only response has been "I don't know how to fix that, can you do it for me please?" That's not good enough, and it shouldn't be my part of this to do it.


 * The exact same lack of progress is also present on the problematic "The tests on this herd established the condition had a recessive mode of genetic inheritance." implying that it was her research, without source support.


 * —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, and as you were answering here, I did a bunch of formatting at the GAN to try and tease out the problems there. I flagged in red where a reply will help. If it is only those two things, great, that clarifies matters immensely. On the cream/LWS problem, no, I am not asking you to "do it for me"  -- that was a mere invitation; I am not opposed to a collaborative moment from a GA reviewer (sometimes when I'm close to the end of a GAR I wind up just showing the editor the rephrase I want and saying "this is what I'm after--do this or something like it"); my core question there remains, "Is this a minor copyedit problem or a sourcing problem?" If tossing those three words and a rephrase is all you need, groovy, I'll toss three words, because the proof of the "at one time" probably exists in materials that were done in the 1970s and 1980s and that's a pre-Google dig that may be difficult to do.  If it's something bigger, clarify the problem.   Montanabw (talk)  06:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On the herd testing issue, I provided an explanation at the GAN, linking three sources. It's complex. What I know about this issue is that Bowling's research on CA was unpublished at the time of her death. Prior to the creation of the herd, the research is clear that there hadn't been enough animals for statistical validity, and even with the herd they may have simply accumulated more evidence, but were somewhere short of the critical mass of data needed to publish.  I don't know.  So that question is basically one of whether we can use the informal general interest sources that credit her with the discovery, or if we have to find a peer-reviewed source that acknowledges it. But we can take further discussion of this back to the GAN and go from there.   Montanabw (talk)  06:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Scientific research publishing
REF: regarding your Amanita ovoidea editing.

May i ask on what basis the reference below with regards to potential toxicity of Amanita ovoidea has been removed from the page?

"However, recent chemical analyses performed on A. ovoidea, have reported the presence of polyphenols and polysaccharides, together with sterol and triterpene glycosides, as well as low levels of allenic norleucine, the same potentially deadly nephrotoxin present in A. proxima. The authors of this study advise against the consumption of this mushroom"

(Biagi, M., Martelli, L., Perini, C., Di Lella, L., Miraldi, E. (2014). Investigations into Amanita ovoidea (Bull.) Link.: Edible or Poisonous? Natural Resources, 2014, 5, 225-232. Published Online DOI: 10.4236/nr.2014.56021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.115.89 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Scientific Research Publishing has been reported as a predatory open access publisher — one that carries out only a sham peer-review process, accepts basically all submissions, and profits from heavy publishing fees — preying on researchers whose employers require them to publish but are not particular about where they publish. As such, it has been determined at WP:RSN that papers published in it are not reliable sources — see in particular Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 205. The source you list is in a Scientific Research Publishing journal. Therefore, it should not be used as a source for a Wikipedia article, especially for a topic involving human health where much stricter standards (WP:MEDSRC) apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear David,

I am not familiar with the contact and peer-reviewing process of the aforementioned journal. However i have read the article, and in my opinion it is a solid contribution providing alarming evidence regarding the potential toxicity of a fungus that is sometimes consumed, and occasionally even sold in markets. The fact that reported poisonings implicating this fungus have been independently reported in the past by other sources, makes this a rather delicate health issue.

In my opinion the paper should be judged on merit rather than dismissed (or censored) based on where it was published. If we take that path, surely half of the references provided in Wikipedia articles (which cite self-published books, non-indexed, non-peer-reviewed journals, or even internet sources), will also need to be dismissed based on the same logic of being "unreliable". If the article is problematic and the conclusions flawed, then surely it won't be long before it is challenged in a follow-up publication, which of course can also be cited and set the record straight. In this case, there are obvious health implications, because the findings of this study directly contradict the findings of a previous study rendering the fungus "safe to eat". Are you willing to take the personal responsibility for censoring information on a potential health hazard implicating a food source, simply because it was published in the wrong journal? With all due respect, i think the potential health risk here far outweighs any concerns regarding the profit policy of the journal the study was published in.

Michael Loizides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.115.89 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT
No need to say "thank you for adding missing templates", I know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did fix it. But if you didn't want to evaluate articles, just add missing templates, the better choice would have been to leave the class parameters blank. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Spheroid
hi. I don't like genuine redundancy either, but frankly you're just plain wrong with your comparisons of "wet water" and other things to the phrase "perfectly spherical". Astronomers and degreed people themselves have used that phrase. People who would never say the phrase "wet water". Not all spheres are necessarily perfect, is the point. What's the problem here?? And as I said, other WP articles have used that phrasing, as well as outside Reliable Sources. From another Wikipedia article that I had nothing to do with, these exact words:

"The Earth is not perfectly spherical but an oblate spheroid, so the length of a minute of latitude increases by 1% from the equator to the poles. Using the WGS84 ellipsoid, the commonly accepted Earth model for many purposes today, one minute of latitude at the WGS84 equator is 6,046 feet and at the poles is 6,107.5 feet. The average is about 6,076 feet (about 1,852 metres or 1.15 statute miles)."

And from an article on physics.stackexchange.com, these words:

"By this measure, the Sun is a near-perfect sphere with an oblateness estimated at about 9 millionths, which means that its polar diameter differs from its equatorial diameter by only 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)."

Are these scientists being "redundantly redundant" as you put it? Or do you see them saying "wet water"? (And that's just some examples; there are a lot more.) You accused me of "edit-warring" for simply not putting up with rude unwarranted reverts, for excuses that simply don't hold up, and keeping to 3RR. (One of my comments on the page was just an edit comment with no real edit...so I kept right at 3RR, and won't cross that.)  YOU are edit-warring by imposing and removing a valid mod (provably valid mod), and clarity, that is NOT really "redundant"...as I kind of just proved with just a sample of places that rightly use the phrase that you have an issue against. The edit and qualifier was for clarity and is correct and used phrasing, and does not qualify for abrupt removal on the grounds of "redundant". That might be true if all "spheres" were considered always "perfect". Apparently not all of them are. Redzemp (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, all spheres are spherical. Otherwise they would be some other shape, not a sphere. That is the standard mathematical usage, and the spheroid article is a mathematics article. Your mention of astronomical bodies that are not actually spheres is irrelevant, because this is an article about mathematics, not astronomy. But as I said, you should take this to Talk:Spheroid. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrase in question is not "spherical sphere" (THAT would be "redundant") but rather the phrase that you keep removing is "perfectly spherical" or "perfect sphere", and sorry, that simply is not redundant...as sources etc prove...as not all spheres are necessarily "perfect" is the point.  Redzemp (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In mathematics, this is false. It is possible to distinguish between different meanings of the word sphere (geometric versus topological, or in different metric spaces) but there is no such thing as an imperfect sphere. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In "mathematics" or any other context, would you call the sun a "sphere" then?  Even if it's not "perfect"?   Would you call the earth a "sphere" even though it's not a perfect sphere?  The sun and earth are both spheres, though "near perfect" or "not perfect".   Why are they called "sphere" even if not 100% "perfect" in absolute circularity in every part?    Yes we call the earth a "spherOID" but isn't the earth also called a sphere too?    Maybe not in strict mathematics, I guess is your point.  My point is that even you'd have to admit that the phrase "spherical sphere" is WAY MORE "redundant" than "perfectly spherical" or "perfect sphere".    Remember, Wikipedia is NOT JUST for technical experts and semantical types, but also for average readers who may need elaboration and clarity.   Again, OTHER Wikipedia articles dealing with distances etc, regarding the earth, say phrases like "perfectly spherical" etc...    And so do some outside sources...written by degreed scientists.   My point is that the phrase "perfectly spherical" is PROVABLY NOT the same as "wet water", as you were saying, with that comparison.   The phrase "spherical sphere" would be more comparable to "wet water".   As both those phrases are truly redundant and needless.   Redzemp (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sun is definitely not a sphere. Its rotation makes its shape more of an oblate spheroid, even if one doesn't count solar flares, sunspots, and other irregularities. But also, the sun is a physical object, not a mathematical one, so asking whether it is a mathematical sphere is a context error, not even wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem. I disagree with you in thinking that this article is strictly narrowly just a "mathematics article" in every single line or paragraph.   And the context of the immediate paragraph and sentences in here were dealing with astronomy matters, the planet earth.   (Even that means what, since isn't the whole universe mathematical in various ways anyway?)   You say that this article is not about "astronomy".    (As if astronomy has no math in it, which we all know that that's not true).   But even so, how can you say that the Spheroid article is ONLY a "mathematics article" in every single line, sentence, or paragraph... when a paragraph about the PLANET EARTH (an astronomical thing) is in the article, etc?    And also "gravity".  Which also includes physics.    All are connected.     Such as:  "Because of the combined effects of gravity and rotation, the Earth's shape is not quite a perfect sphere but instead is slightly flattened in the direction of its axis of rotation. For that reason, in cartography the Earth is often approximated by an oblate spheroid instead of a sphere. The current World Geodetic System model uses a spheroid whose radius is 6,378.137 km at the equator and 6,356.752 km at the poles."    (And sorry, the sun and earth are "spheres" broadly, and are called that by scientists, when not being so overly-technical, and use the phrase "near perfect sphere" or "not a perfect sphere" etc.   Both the sun and earth (and the moon too) are circular objects, even if not perfectly so on every side necessarily.   Why does the word "spheroid" have the very word "sphere" in it?   But anyway, you see the paragraph's wording dealing with astronomy matters.   So even if this article is maybe mainly a "mathematics article", it's not 100% strictly just that.   At least not totally in this paragraph in question.  Redzemp (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"Maxima of a point set"
I have no doubt that, in some communities, the "skyline problem" might refer to the problem of decomposing something into border-aligned rectangles. However, in the database community, it's instead how the "maxima of a point set problem" is known, even if it's a terrible and misleading name:
 * Recently, there has been a growing interest in socalled Skyline queries [BKS01, TEO01]. The Skyline of a set of points is defined as those points that are not dominated by any other point [VLDB ]
 * The skyline operator is important for several applications involving multi-criteria decision making. Given a set of objects p_1, p_2, ..., p_N, the operator returns all objects p_i such that p i is not dominated by another object p_j [ACM Transactions on Database Systems ].
 * The skyline of a set of d-dimensional points contains the points that are not dominated by any other point on all dimensions. [SIGMOD ]

and many more. I think it would be a nice idea to provide that alternative name because it would help someone looking for new developments on this problem. akbg (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

edit warring and "I don't like" suppression
the refs were about the point of 'sometimes called'...unwarranted revert... For suppression and "I don't like" reasons....won't work, Dave....... We discussed this the other day, but obviously you won't even compromise coolly with no collaboration. Just with the attitude of "the words 'perfect sphere' will not exist in this article, in any way form or fashion, period". You have this big hang-up for some reason against the words "perfect sphere" even though they are sourced. And instead of admitting that you personally don't like the phrase, you and Strebe come up with all these front excuses and cop-out reasons to remove a valid and sourced point... And this was MARK's wording and suggestion (that even whittled down to instead of "commonly" called to "sometimes" called), but that's still not good enough for people who don't understand what the word "wiki" means, and that you don't own any article, no matter what your background is in "mathematics". Or how many Admins get fooled and suckered by this nonsense. I only go by references and true CONSENSUS...(even if the consensus is provably wrong, I still abide by it ultimately.)   You and Strebe and Anita versus me and Mark and others don't a consensus make. Reverted, restored, and regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * TL;DR. Learn to write more concisely. Also, please stop edit-warring to keep add your preferred text while we discuss it. That is not how WP:BRD works. The fact that you have been reverted by three different editors should be a clue. You appear to be up to five reverts in one day (counting all attempts to re-insert the same "perfect" wording, regardless of surrounding text), well over WP:3RR. It seems likely that the eventual result of this behavior will be you being blocked, the article being edit-protected, or both. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * not all were reverts, as you yourself know, but some were reference placements, and also minor wording modifications. True "reverts" were not 5 or 6.  Also, I put a couple of "comment edits"...with no real edit at all.   The point, David (by the way, sincerely speaking, you have a nice name...I like it...), is that on the Talk page, I have at least one or two WHO SEE MY POINT...and it was Mark himself who put that as a suggestion there.   And it's sourced, and you dodge that point.  But as I said, I always abide by real consensus, even if it's wrong or questionable.   And that has not really been reached.   Mark never reverted me.   And it doesn't matter that 2 or 3 contributors reverted me if those 2 or 3 editors are WRONG AND IN VIOLATION, of "no own" and "no rationales" (strebe a number of times), etc.  Regards.  Redzemp (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Widest path problem
The article Widest path problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Widest path problem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Oshwah -- Oshwah (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit reverted?
I'm curious, why did you revert this edit? IceKarma&#x0950; 18:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I was confused by the markup into thinking the edit removed a space between a semicolon and the following word, which would not have been a helpful thing to do. I have undone my revert. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Done
Over to you. . Montanabw (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your careful and thorough review. This was probably the toughest GAN I've ever had, (certainly the toughest I've done as a mostly-solo effort) but it was appropriate given the scientific nature of the topic.  I wanted to commend you for your civility and your care, particularly when we were getting wires crossed and I wasn't figuring out what I needed to do.  I'd be more than willing to review an article for you in exchange, so feel free to ping me if you ever have a GAN that is languishing in the queue.  Montanabw (talk)  22:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for the offer. The articles I nominate tend to be even more technical, though, so I won't feel amiss if you get cold feet. I've been trying to maintain a 2-to-1 quid-pro-quo of reviews to nominations, so I need to do a couple more reviews before I can make any more noms. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks for the columns
I was about to get to it after dinner.  DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Help requested: Good Article Review
Hello, I was just wondering if you would be interested in reviewing another of mine and Worm That Turned articles? Sabrina Sidney was the subject of a pretty horrendous experiment but its a fascinating story. We are hoping to get this one to featured and would really appreciate your thorough review approach to put us in the best position to get it to featured standard in the future. Don't worry if you can't - I know there are 101 other things for Wikipedians to do! ツStacey (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Hall of Fame!
--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Please see above of Dao's theorem
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/234053/daos-theorem-on-six-circumcenters-associated-with-a-cyclic-hexagon

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201424.pdf

http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart3.html#X3649

http://www.journal-1.eu/2016-2/Ngo-Quang-Duong-Dao-theorem-pp.40-47.pdf

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201429.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.189.226.37 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

GAR input sought
Hi, I followed here from the Jonathan Wells RFC and I don't believe we interacted before. I am reaching out to you for an opinion, as you appear to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality and extraordinary claims, and have experience with GA articles and general Wikipedia policies.

It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist World War II knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.

I would welcome a review of the article to see if it still meets Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would also welcome any feedback you'd be willing to share. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Topological graph theory
Regarding this edit: Sorry about that! Topic is far outside my familiarity, so thanks for taking a look. Didn't mean to cause any trouble. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, any chance you can make sense of Agent network topology? I happened to land on it and tried to de-orphan it. But really I have no idea what it's talking about. If you can find a way to make the lead make some sense (or, maybe even find a reasonable way to de-orphan it?) you'd be my hero. Ajpolino (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Todorcevic
Todorcevic is not a recently deceased person. I've fully supported my changes with a citation to a reliable source. Please, go to Todorcevic:talk page to address your changes of his biography and justified them there. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, he's an alive person. Those are even more protected here. You MUST provide adequate reliable sources for any information on such articles. Primary sources (such as Todorcevic's own publications) can be acceptable for purely factual claims that are not in dispute (such as where he studied) but anything subject to interpretation requires independent and reliably-published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, independent and reliably-published sources are used. The Todorcevic's book addressed is a widely accepted academic work, not disputed by anyone.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)