User talk:David Eppstein/2018c

Michael A. Santoro
Hi. Hate to bug you, but I was reviewing new pages and came across this article. Not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG, and when I pull up Google scholar, not sure if, in this field, these types of numbers meet the WP:NSCHOLAR requirement. Thoughts?  Onel 5969  TT me 00:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For someone who publishes books, reviews are probably more relevant than citation counts. I found plenty for Profits and Principles but (on a quick and non-thorough search) only one for China 2020 and none for Wall Street Values. That's plausibly enough for WP:AUTHOR but still a borderline case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I'll leave the notability tag for now.  Really appreciate it.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Witch of Agnesi
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Witch of Agnesi 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 Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alma Mahler
David Eppstein, this nomination has been sitting for over a month, and the latest comment has a question for you. If you could stop by as soon as possible to help get it moving again, that would be very helpful. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Witch of Agnesi
The article Witch of Agnesi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Witch of Agnesi 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 Power~enwiki -- Power~enwiki (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS
Since it’s the first part of the "Name" section and not the "Changed names" part (one of the shortcuts to it is indeed titled MOS:BIRTHNAME), we should obviously use a name that was never changed; since Clinton wasn’t Hillary’s maiden name, we should therefore use something else. Esszet (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So we have to exclude almost all married women, except for sufficiently modern ones that they didn't change their name or confusing cases like Roosevelt whose two names were equal? That seems kind of...sexist to me. The Clinton example has nothing to do with maiden names (her birth name is not given in the example) and therefore the fact that she happens to have a birth name is irrelevant to her suitability as an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The fuck? Exclude them from what, the first part of the "Names" section in the fucking Wikipedia Manual of Style?  You really think that’s sexist?  The fact is that pretty much all of the married women on here are already listed as [full married name] (née [maiden name]) and are thus excluded anyway (thus the "Changed names" section); using Hillary as an example there would do...pretty much nothing in that respect.  As I basically stated before, using her as an example there gives the misleading impression that that is how the names of married women are generally given on here; I don’t appreciate your slightly nasty and condescending tone, either. Esszet (talk)<


 * Well. That escalated quickly. You could try not being so quick to take offense. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you’re really pushing it. What’s it gonna be, Hillary or no Hillary? Esszet (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the voters settled that question nearly two years ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Hillary’s only been there since...April 29.  Seriously, what the hell? Esszet (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

alphabetization
I notice that the article Virginia Vassilevska Williams contains the template DEFAULTSORT:Williams, Virginia Vassilevska. That is, her name is alphabetized in Wikipedia under Williams rather than Vassilevska. Do you know if that is right? I thought she uses a double-barrelled name which would be alphabetized under V. Thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know her specific preference, but for instance the BibTeX records for her papers at DBLP list her name in a way that causes it to be alphabetized under W. Her MIT faculty profile doesn't even include the middle name. On the other hand she has a STOC 2018 paper where the alphabetical ordering of authors puts her before Nicole Wein, and an ICALP 2016 paper that lists her before Josh Wang. So you may be right. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You'd think you brilliant computer scientists could at least get the alphabetization of your own names right. Jeesh. EEng 16:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Belated thanks. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Kempner function
Hi, I don't suppose you could take a look at this article when you've got a minute? An editor removed some of the Florentin Smarandache related content and gave justifiable, if rather blunt, reasons, and an edit-war has broken out with some editors who I don't think appreciate the full extent of the situation. I have no particular opinion on whether the Smarandache should stay or go, but I think a discussion needs to be had about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

María del Carmen Martínez Sancho
Thank you so much for your help with this page! It had been translated for my from the Spanish wiki page by a keen student. Thanks a million! Jesswade88 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

SHORTDESC and short description confusion
Apologies about special:diff/849995757. I got Template:SHORTDESC and template:short description mixed up. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Potential article for a computer scientist
As a computer scientist yourself I wanted to know whether you think Stuart Reges of the University of Washington is notable enough for an article. He probably doesn't meet WP:PROF but there is some coverage of him in independent reliable sources such as these:      So I am wondering if in your opinion he is notable enough to meet WP:BIO or any other notability guideline like WP:GNG. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk  01:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to create articles based on very recent political blowups. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. If he is notable, he is notable as a computer science educator, not for his political opinions. (There are a handful of people who are well known among computer scientists for their work in CS education rather than CS research; he's one. But I'm not sure how well that translates into Wikipedia-notability. I also think his 1991 drug-advocacy firing from Stanford is not enough for notability by itself, despite making national news at the time.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
Be much appreciated if we could get some input from you for the conversation, thanks. Govvy (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Witch of Agnesi
Casliber 00:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Category:Cellular automata in computer games
I decided to add this category to Zarlor Mercenary instead, I was wondering if it's correct to do that. I am sure there must be more games that use this type of coding that could be in the category, wouldn't mind your two-cents on the subject, cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As it is now, I wonder if it's too small to make a viable category. But the topic is well-enough defined and I think separate enough from Category:Cellular automaton software to make a reasonable category. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Nearest Neighbor Search with kd-tree
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K-d_tree&diff=prev&oldid=852749179

The comment is specifically in the Nearest Neighbor Search section of the kd-tree article. Just to make sure we're not confusing nearest neighbor search vs kd-tree element search. It is understood that finding an element or bounding box that would contain a given query element in kd-tree is O(logn), but in the context of NNS, when kd-tree is used, you must first find the bounding box that would contain the query element, and then calculate the distance between the query and the datapoint that's in the same box, and walk back up the tree every time the distance between the points exceeds the distance to the dividing boundary, and search the other side of the tree too.

A very easy way to demonstrate that the worst case NNS using kd-tree is O(n) is as follows:


 * Assume you're using the variant of kd-tree in which splits occur on the median data point within the set of datapoints. As in this figure:
 * In the example shown, a query point could occur in the lower left corner of the upper right box, and the upper right data point could be moved arbitrarily far to the up and right, with no effect on the dividing lines within the space. Since the distance between query point and data point can be increased arbitrarily, eventually all boundaries will be closer to the query point than the data point in the same box. In fact, the data point in the same box could be the *farthest* neighbor from the query point. So the search will take O(n) time.
 * This adversarial technique can be used on any kd-tree where there exists a point in an unbounded box. Just put the query point into the same box, and move the data point arbitrarily far away, in any dimension that does not restructure the tree.

Draft:Dori Laub
Hello! I wonder if you could take a look at this draft. It seems it will take a while until someone could find a time to review it. The subject of this article was a prominent researcher at Yale University, a Holocaust survivor (and a friend of mine). It's a translation of the Hebrew article. Many thanks! OhadUfaz (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Virginia R. Young
Please respond on the talk-page and stop editwarring. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded on your talk page instead. Your tagging serves no useful purpose but to make Wikipedia uglier and to hang a permanent black mark around the subject's neck. It does not identify a problem with the article, because there is no problem with the quality of its sourcing for what the sources are being used for. Go away and find something more useful to do with your Wikipedia editing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

María Sáez de Vernet‎
OK you have source in a newspaper that is an opinion piece. Its not a fact or an academic consensus.

Which part of WP:ATTRIBUTE doesn't apply? WCM email 22:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (The context is this edit to María Sáez de Vernet, an article that WCM is trying to delete, apparently as part of some political dispute over the Falklands.)
 * In what way is it possible for a description of someone who wrote a diary as a diarist to be an opinion? By calling it an opinion, you are implying that she may not have actually written a diary. Is there any reasonable possibility that she didn't, keeping in mind that her diary exists as a physical object in a major library? Basically, your edit calling this an opinion looks like a serious violation of MOS:ALLEGED. It conveys doubt about the existence of the diary when there is no reasonable cause for doubt. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No I'm not, simply reflecting that for nearly 200 years no one thought to publish this diary or thought it of special significance. If you actually read it, its mainly dull and tedious e.g. it was windy today.  So all you have right now is the opinion of one individual that this is a significant piece of literature.  And I'm sure it will come as a surprise to no one that the Falklands are windy. WCM email 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the diary is interesting is not the point. If she wrote a diary, she was a diarist. There is no valid reason to slap "opinion" on the sentence calling her a diarist. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the part of WP:GNG where it says keeping a personal diary makes you notable? WCM email 23:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh and no, I nominated it for deletion as a non-notable individual and an article that was a WP:COATRACK for Argentine claims over the Falklands. It would be appreciated if you'd not run with the herd and make bad faith presumptions over my motives.  I've got a diary, can I have a wiki article too? WCM email 23:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Once other people start writing books about you and your diary, sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So when in the opinion of an individual writing in a tabloid my diary is of significance that's justification of its great significance is it? And we wouldn't have to mention that it was that person's opinion.  Is that it? WCM email 23:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh and historical fiction now establishes notability now? WCM email 23:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not usable as source material for an encyclopedia article but it makes clear that the subject has a certain level of fame. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet you used precisely such a source in this article. Interesting.
 * BTW the two books you mentioned are historical fiction, one is actually quoted in the Spanish article but misrepresented as being part of the diary. WCM email 00:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I said in the AfD that they are historical fiction. Why are you telling me things I already know? It comes across as badgery. And I added no sources, let alone those novels as sources, to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I've taken it to WP:RSN for a second opinion as to whether fiction is a WP:RS, yours is a novel argument. I was simply pointing out that that the Spanish article quotes the fiction, this was translated straight into the English language article without any fact checking.  I didn't say you did it.  But you have added a source, which is an opinion piece and have removed any mention that the significance is the opinion of the author.  Feel free to report me to WP:ANI but as it seems an attempt to engage in friendly conversation is rather frustrated by your persistent presumption of bad faith I will probably ignore further replies.  WCM email 00:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify when I said "And yet you used precisely such a source in this article. Interesting." I was referring to the newspaper article. It appears my comment got separated and could be miscontrued. WCM email 00:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I added no sources of any kind, newspaper, historical novel, anything else, to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies I was confused about that. In my defence I've had many editors furious with me today for what I saw as a routine nomination. WCM email 00:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Vicky Neale
I was going through the list of math draft pages to see if anything could be salvaged from the dreck, and I found Draft:Vicky Neale. After doing a little expansion, I think the draft meets WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:PROF. Your opinion would be welcome. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd been holding off on this one because I thought the main case for notability was through WP:AUTHOR, and with only one book (albeit one with multiple reviews) the case was weak. But your listing of BBC appearances saves her from having only one claim to notability and makes a reasonable case for WP:PROF as you say. The article should probably also give her more specific affiliations under Oxford's weird dual specialty+college system (Whitehead Lecturer at the Mathematical Institute and Supernumerary Fellow at Balliol College). I'm not sure whether her 2016 ACME keynote is also worth mentioning. Anyway, I think it's in reasonable shape to try making an article out of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the affiliations (and added the ACME keynote as a citation; doesn't seem to hurt). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving this here mostly as a record for my own later use, but another math draft that looked promising to me is Draft:Sigal Gottlieb. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I expanded the draft further and promoted it to mainspace at Vicky Neale. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Albert_Cashier
David Eppstein, singular "they" isn't on the table at this RfC. The question is pronoun-free (as in the sample in the section above), yes or no. Cheers, Awien (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's about gendered-pronoun-free. And singular they is a perfectly respectable way of writing gendered-pronoun-free. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I admit that the wording of the RfC could have been clearer, but the intention was a choice between status quo and free of third-person personal pronouns altogether. I personally have no issue with "they", but those who hate it hate it A LOT, so to try to go that route would almost certainly lead to more edit warring. (I encounter the anti-they brigade in real life, and find them stubbornly immoveable). Cheers, Awien (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I bet even the most hardened of them could be caught unconsciously using singular they in spoken English. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ah, but that's different" ... Awien (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

revdel suggestion
I have brought my suggestion to WP:VPP, any input would be appreciated (as this could resque some good material while keeping spirit of WP:BMB). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:AfQ
I invite you to contribute to a fledgling WikiProject Quicksilver. --- Coffee  and crumbs  21:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but although I've worked on a couple of project-related biographies, my impression is that the Quicksilver list mostly targets medical researchers, while my main interests in academic biography involve mathematics, computer science, and statistics. So I'm not convinced it's a good fit for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Note
Also, just a note here because the WiR talk is getting crazy and I want the timeline here to be clear: I saw WCM's post on Elisa's page, went to the history, checked the diffs, went back to her contribs to check the block log, saw the blanking of the talk page, and then blocked. I know it's a tight timeline, but through edit histories being point-in-time and my always blocking from contributions, I didn't catch WCM's revert until you pointed it out to me. I'm trying to stay out of the dispute over the content since I blocked, but I also want to be very clear on what happened since I think accountability is important when blocking an established editor. Anyway, thanks for all the work you do for the project. It really is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say I think it is very unfortunate, Tony, that you rushed into this without looking at the history of María Sáez de Vernet and WCM's attitude on that article at AfD. expressed surprise there at WCM's hostility. Elisa might be rather naive but even in connection with copyright, I don't think she ever intended to break any rules. Over the past year or so, several of our most active editors on WiR have decided to retire as a result of the treatment they have received on Wikipedia. Now that you obviously realize you did not keep track of developments, I think you should apologize and unblock Elisa. If you have time, please also review the previous reasons Elisa was blocked indefinitely. There was obviously a misunderstanding of copyright rules but these had not been sufficiently clarified. If administrators continue to treat keen women contributors in this way, there is not much chance that we will succeed in improving the coverage of women on the English Wikipedia. We are already beginning to fall well behind many other language versions. I realize you were simply trying to apply the rules as you understand them but it is sometimes useful to look more carefully into the background.--Ipigott (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have no intent of unblocking Elisa at this time, and I did not rush to judgement. She is one of the most chronically disruptive editors I have seen, and her UTRS appeal consisted entirely of blaming other people. At this point I believe the best thing for Wikipedia would be for her to follow the standard offer procedure, because an unblock now will likely just lead to another block by another admin in a few months for similar behavior on another issue. Blocks exist to prevent disruption, not punish, and everything Elisa has done since being blocked has suggested that it is her intent to continue being disruptive. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm too proud. But if I were blocked on a charge of making more than three reverts, in a situation where I had made what I felt were only two reverts and where the other editor had made at least as many edits of a similar type and remained completely unsanctioned, and if I were then told that the only way to restore access would be to grovel about how yes I know that that number of reverts is actually four and to promise not to miscount my reverts again, my response would be to walk away and forget trying to ever contribute to what I would see as a hopelessly disfunctional community. So I can understand where Elisa is coming from, and I don't think this approach of waiting for an apology is likely to work. (I also suspect that there is a phenomenon where the level of aggression that is deemed to be unacceptable is different for women and for men, but I have no actual evidence to point to for this happening either in general or in this specific instance. I bring this up merely to point out that punishing someone more severely because of a past record of punishment, when there is reason to believe that some of the past punishment may have been disproportionate, may serve to extend past injustices.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey math prof
I'd like for you to have a look at Duodecimal--a ton of unexplained IP edits. As it happens I'm a mathematical genius and can easily figure out what's going on, but I figured I'd leave something for you as well. ;) Drmies (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not a professor of mathematics (my department is computer science). But sure, I'll take a look. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried, but the IP reverted me twice without comment. A few more eyes on this would help. I'll try asking at WT:WPM. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:'Bridge' by Kenneth Noland, 1964..jpg
Hi David. I'm not sure if you were aware of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 27, but the file originally was licensed as non-free content, and appears to have been converted to PD as a result of that discussion. It was then tagged for a move to Commons and subsequently moved there. Now, perhaps the close and everything that followed was just one mistake after another, but I'm not sure F9 is the best way to try and sort this out. Perhaps it would be better to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The FFD discusison was closed by so maybe he would be willing to reconsider it and return the file back to non-free to allow further discussion. The reason the file was intially brought up for discussion at FFD was because of concerns raised about its non-free use; simply converting it back to non-free would resolve the F9 issue, but at the same time it would "re-create" those non-free issues.

As for the discussion on the Commons file, I feel that's best left to Commons. I'm only suggesting that we try and keep the Wikipedia and Commons discussions separate since the Commons file most likely will have to go, but the local file might be able to be kept as non-free, with it only being removed from certain articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was decided to be PD, I'm pretty sure it was a horrible mistake. And if you want to keep it non-free here, it is going to need a proper free usage rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am minded to let the copyright folks at Commons hash it out before taking any steps here, delicate copyright questions get far more commentary on Commons than they get here which is a problem for FFD. The problem is whether such an image is complex enough to get copyright protection; as one can see from commons:COM:TOO not all of them do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything more to add, but thanks for stopping by. I was thinking of pinging you here after seeing Marchjuly's link but now I don't need to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That particular FFD was pretty contentious and was relisted twice before being closed. The idea that the file might be PD was broached late in the discussion and might've been related to c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/07. The reason the file was originally nominated for discussion was because it was being used in quite a lot of different articles and there were concerns that not all of the uses complied with the NFCC; it didn't start out as a WP:PUF-type of discussion. I can see logic in both sides of the argument as to whether this should be PD-simple, but I understand that Commons might hold things to a stricter standard than Wikipedia. Ideally on matters such as this, it would be best for both projects to be in tune, but the reality is not always the case. I think Jo-Jo's suggestion of waiting to see what happens at Commons is a good idea; if Commons ends up keeping this file, there's no real need for a local version on Wikipedia and it can probably be deleted per WP:F8; on the other hand, if the Commons DR results in the deletion of the file, then it could possibly be kept locally as non-free, but shouldn't be kept as PD. Such a thing, however, would probably mean a reassessment of the FFD close and perhaps further discussion to determine whether the file can be used anywhere in an NFCC-compliant way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile you guys left the file tagged F9 and has gone ahead and deleted it under that criterion. So I guess now "wait for commons" means consider re-uploading as FU if the commons discussion ends up as a delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Parent of element in a d-ary heap
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D-ary_heap&type=revision&diff=855466715&oldid=855456432 The parent of 2 is 1. As 1 is the root node, it is the only node with a parent of 0. This is shown in the referenced source.

The function is clearly Ceil((x-1)/d) in Tarjan, R. E. (1983), "3.2. d-heaps", Data Structures and Network Algorithms, CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, 44, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, pp. 34–38.

Apologies for poorly formatted message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myeditacc (talk • contribs)
 * Is Tarjan using 0-based or 1-based array indexing? The floor version is for 0-based indexing, which is what all modern programming languages use. Tarjan may well have been using 1-based, as languages from that time like FORTRAN and Pascal did. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Tarjan did indeed use 1-based array index. Cormen also used 1-based array index in his book Introduction to algorithms, MIT press, page 152 on Heapsort. Please clarify in the wiki page or change the referenced source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myeditacc (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it just me?
I'd appreciate your unbiased opinion on WP:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Mokotoff. See also User_talk:Michig. EEng 20:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus there appears very clear that GNG really means "we keep articles when I think the subject has done something significant and we can point to publications that sort of mention something vaguely related to the subject". Finding another AfD that demonstrates the corollary, that it also means "we delete articles that have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources when I don't think that what the subject has done is significant", is left as an exercise. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thanks a bunch. Should I take it to delrev (which I just realized is revdel backwards) or just say fuck it? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the drovers are just going to say that the consensus was clear and there was nothing else a reasonable closer could have done. It was a bad discussion but the close wasn't what made it bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Page issues with simple vs non-simple longest path problem
I had tried to clarify the Longest path problem entry, as it has issues regarding both clarity and consistency of the actual nature of the problem.

On the same page, it:
 * mixes simple and non-simple longest path problems
 * claims that the problem is NP-Hard, while also claiming that in general there are linear algorithms that solve this.

Several of the claims about linearity, NP-Hard complexity are related to the particular restrictions on either the path (simple or not) or the graph (acyclic, directed, non-negative weights).

Indeed, I made two grammatical/editing mistakes during this edit:
 * "Finding ... can be found..." is indeed redundant, and the "Finding" at the beginning should have been removed
 * "... all weights are non-negative,... cannot lead to _negative_ cycles in -G." This should have read "... or when all weights are non-negative... cannot lead to _positive_ cycles in -G"

I feel that these two grammar + one logical mistake that I made should not have led to the revert.

I hope you'll take the time to giving me specific pointers on, other than the grammar, how this edit can be improved. Please clarify additional objections to the edits that I made.

If this edit is rejected for other reasons, I still strongly advise that a warning is added to the page that it is incomplete, needs clarifications. The current state does not reflect a proper dissection of clarification of the main issues that I feel most Wikipedia visitors would look for.

Joostvanpinxten (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Autumn Kent
I just noticed that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Autumn Kent was never transcluded into the actual MfD list. I guess the procedural thing to do is to list it now, but it seems a pity to waste editors' attention for another week. Sigh. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Evelyn Wang
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping me out with this article. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for starting it. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Magdalena Mouján
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Authorlink
I tried to figure out how to do the Authorlinkauthorlink business. Could you show me an exact example.--Toploftical (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * produces
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * thx
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * thx

deletion nomination: Draft:Suman Kumar Kasturi
Could you please guide me improving the article so that it could be published with your approval, I mean the approval of respected wiki editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venuanki (talk • contribs)
 * In some cases it is not the article that needs to be improved, but instead the accomplishments of the article's subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding Articles for deletion/Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators
I've added Articles for deletion/Prophecies of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to the academics and educators sorting because Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is an educator and these are supposedly his prophecies. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Religious leaders who are not primarily education professionals (e.g. teachers at a seminary, madrasa, or yeshiva) should not be listed on that page. "Educator" is used in the specific sense of someone whose profession is education, not in the more general sense of someone whose works educate people. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough. --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isosceles triangle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isosceles triangle 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 Fearstreetsaga -- Fearstreetsaga (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Weird PROD problem
I nominated ABeam Consulting for deletion via PROD but a weird thing has happened. The date and time indicating when the seven days would be up has come and passed but the message the article is now eligible for deletion has not popped up like it would normally do. What do I do? Thanks. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pages don't get updated instantaneously - a purge (which I did) fixes the issue Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the purge and the education. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also I think that the chronological listings admins use to find and handle deletion-eligible prods don't depend on what is showing on the actual article. Anyway, I went ahead and deleted this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isosceles triangle
The article Isosceles triangle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isosceles triangle 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 Fearstreetsaga -- Fearstreetsaga (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Weiqing Gu


The article Weiqing Gu has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:BIO. Sources listed are not independent except for the cancer article, which only mentions her briefly. No evidence of significant third-party coverage."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 134.173.137.183 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see got to this before I could respond, but you should read and understand Notability (academics). Professors who hold named chairs, as Gu does, are considered automatically notable on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OK
No problem. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Retract
Either provide evidence, in the form of diffs, behind your blatant personal attack that WBG has been stalking article creator Elisa Rolle's talk page in an apparent crusade to expurgate anything she has done from Wikipedia and prevent her from collaborating with anyone else who might want to further her interests in covering women on Wikipedia or retract the statement with an unconditional apology.

FWIW, AFAIR, I came across the name first, in Tony's application for CU and the Interaction Analyser does not contradict, either. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, it appears to be factually incorrect that you have been stalking ER's talk page. Prior to your (of course entirely proper) AfD notification you appear not to have edited there. I have removed that from my AfD comment and I apologize for making that mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)