User talk:David Eppstein/2019b

IOHK
Hiya, you left me a comment a while ago on not spamming about the company IOHK. I was just wondering why this is considered spam? I was researching them and they come up as a respectable company often and they are very intertwined with Bitcoin. I was just wondering? Best, Monica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monica Poucheva-Murray (talk • contribs) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yo:
a noteworthy discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

NP-completeness and subexponential algorithms
Hi! I just saw your recent revert at NP-completeness.

I wonder about the last sentence in the 3rd item, viz. "For example, the independent set and dominating set problems are NP-complete when restricted to planar graphs, but can be solved in subexponential time on planar graphs using the planar separator theorem". Wouldn't that imply that the exponential time hypothesis doesn't hold, while the article says this is an open question? In Dotcapitalized's version, there was a remark about input encoding; maybe this could solve the issue?

(I also thought the repetition of "planar graphs" could indicate an error; however, e.g. changing the first "planar" to something more general would turn it into a non-example.)

Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You have to adjust the time lower bound by the change in input size caused by reductions from one problem to another. ETH assumes that 3SAT (etc) cannot be solved in $$2^{o(n)}$$ time. The reduction from 3SAT to planar Max Ind Set blows up the input size from $$n$$ (for the 3SAT instance) to $$\Theta(n^2)$$. So, what ETH implies about the time for planar MIS is that (now changing $$n$$ to be the planar instance size) the time cannot be $$2^{o(\sqrt{n})}$$. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! I added a footnote in the lead of exponential time hypothesis, plagiating from your answer. Since ETH isn't mentioned in NP-completeness, a corresponding note might not be necessary there (?) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

p-adic rationals
Sir, you undid my contribution about p-adic rationals. Certainly, as it was it was unsourced. But also certainly, there are sources. And when I find them I will insert them.

Certainly, for every $$p\in\mathbb P\cup\{\infty\} $$ there is the isomorphism $$\Q\subset\Q_p $$, and one is able to calculate with rational numbers in either field. But the arithmetic, orderability etc. of the closeby non-rationals is so radically different, that people are not aware of.

Nor are the authors of “quote notation” (subsequent section) who try to solve problems in Archimedean systems by taking a non-Archimedean approach. If the non-Archimedean metric really were relevant to a certain tableau of data the approach were prone to fail. So, why take this non-Archimedean deviation?
 * Fortunately, they remain in the rational domain — but there their quote notation is dual and isomorphic to the well-known repeating decimal notation (which btw. they call “overscore notation”).
 * However unfortunately, they have to quit quote notation when there is the danger of explosion of the data. Then they have to redo using the arithmetics of the overscore notation!

A comparison of Archimedean and non-Archimedean systems is highly needed containing e.g. the aspects: bases, uniqueness, non-orderability, arithmetical algorithms, subrings. And what do you propose as a better place for that than the article P-adic number — especially in the light of its lengthy section Introduction which deals wholely with the overscore notation (which now really does not belong here)? --Nomen4Omen (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Conclusion


 * I have to revoke: Because my 13 edits of the matter have been undone on 09:07, 15 May 2019‎ by user:Jasper Deng there will be no further effort from my side. --Nomen4Omen (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Grants versus awards, CV-ish writing
You've handled a lot of academic and author biographies; what do you think of the points in question at Talk:Adam Becker? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in! The page probably needs more work still, but after three copyvio removals I don't really have the energy to do more with it yet. Wasn't there some chatter a while back about making a Manual of Style thing on how to write academic/author biographies, so they don't read like CVs? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Infinite graphs with Euler lines
The old version does not work for infinite graphs. This is a problem for a characterization in the infinite graphs section.

Consider the integers with edges between adjacent numbers. This clearly has an Eulerian line. Now remove a single point. Then every point in the removed subgraph has even degree, yet the remainder has two infinite components.

This is why I corrected it to match the reference. The correct characterization is about the degrees of vertices in the remainder, not degrees in the removed subgraph.--122.56.199.28 (talk) 07:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not true that every point in the removed subgraph of your example has even degree. The neighbors of the removed vertex do not. The more problematic example is $$K_{2,\infty}$$. So the correct fix is to use the "exactly one infinite connected component" version that you prefer, but also add that the initial graph is infinite (the part you forgot that made your edit incorrect). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
It's nice to be able to squeeze in a rational discussion now and then.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Exopolitics redirection
Hi David,

I'm new around, sorry in advance if I'm missing something obvious. If I understand correctly, you bot reverted my change in which I disable the redirection Exopolitics -> Politics of outer space. See the change here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exopolitics&type=revision&diff=894727813&oldid=894725773

How can I argue that Expolitics is not Astropolitics?

--1ucian0 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This has historically been a very contentious subject, because many Wikipedia editors consider exopolitics and the people who push the use of that phrase to be WP:FRINGE. See the five previous discussions on whether we should have a separate article on the topic, listed in the banner at the top of Talk:Politics of outer space. So, to support splitting it into a separate article again, I think you would need especially high-quality sources: ones that are reliably published, clearly make the distinction you want to make, cover the distinct topic in nontrivial detail, and cannot be attacked as fringe publications. In contrast, your attempt at a separate article is a pure dictionary definition, without any sources at all. It is significantly worse than the past versions that were already discussed and, eventually, rejected in favor of a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Graph terminology
Hello David. You recently edited the Graph (discrete mathematics) and Graph theory articles to change the terminology "arrow" to "edge" for directed graphs. I am totally fine with that, but you did not update the edge set symbol, which is still A (for arrows) instead of E. Was it intended?
 * — Maggyero (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not intended, I just missed that the notation had been changed. E is better. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

k shortest path routing#Variations
Hi David,

I've copyedited the "variations" section of the k shortest path routing article, which includes Eppstein's algorithm. I came across the article following links from the ongoing WT:NPROF discussions and noted the section was not well written. However, my understanding of the topic is not high, so I ask that you have a look and see if what I have changed has introduced any problems. I've added a more general reference to support the significance. I understand that you may not want to edit it directly, COI and all that, but I'm happy to take on board any comments that you might have.

Thanks,

EdChem (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks — I have it watchlisted, and already saw that your changes looked ok, but as you say I prefer not to edit it directly myself. As long as you're editing it, a few suggestions that you can feel free to use or ignore:
 * The "related problems" section seems kind of redundant to me, since what it actually lists are algorithms not problems and they can all be found at shortest path problem. But instead you might consider Suurballe's algorithm which really does solve a related problem (find multiple paths, but the paths should all be disjoint and you're trying to minimize the sum of their lengths).
 * I have two recent papers, one surveying k-best problems more generally, and a second one that solves the loopless variant in time linear in the size of the graph + logarithmic per path, listed as the last two papers at https://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pubs/kbest.html, so if the article ever gets expanded to the point where the time complexity of special classes of graphs is worth including, that's one to possibly include.
 * I think much more importantly, there are fine-grained reductions according to which it might not be possible to improve the time for Yen's algorithm on arbitrary graphs, even for the case of two paths. The reference is: Virginia Vassilevska Williams and Ryan Williams. Subcubic equivalences between path, matrix and triangle problems. In 51th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE Computer Society, 2010. doi:10.1109/FOCS.2010.67.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: AfD comment
Re: this comment, and bringing it here because I've always respected you and found you fair. I've been staying out of this as I closed the Phelps thing neutrally knowing it'd attract controversy and that regardless of the outcome having an admin who could hold their own do it was best. That said, I think the concern that some people such as are raising is that you have someone where there are valid questions about some of the articles produced and claims that have been made. I agree 100% that some people are targeting her in an unfair way: a lot of the work that she does do is great. At the same time I don't necessarily think that having someone who understands how academia and science in the United States work and who has done a lot to promote women scientist on Wikipedia review these is a bad thing.I don't really have an opinion on the Imara AfD, but I do think there should be a middle ground when someone who is active in a content area raises what appear to be valid concerns about a high profile editor's work. The unfortunate thing about this is that it's going to be politicized on both side. Anyway, hope all is well with you and that this makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that taking someone well known and even notable for creating biographies of women, and poring through her hundreds or thousands of article creations looking for weaker articles to nominate for deletion, all because she was hounded by a stalker to the point that the stalker had to be taken to ANI for it, is 100% a bad thing. We have already driven away at least one other productive member of Women in Red by exactly the same tactics. Finding these borderline articles through random browsing, or as they appear on the new page list, and tagging them then, is one thing. This is not that. It is specifically and deliberately going through a high-quality and recognized body of work, in part because that body of work consists of female biographies, and picking out points to attack it. It is institutional misogyny and, independently of that, the very definition of wikihounding, and it must be called out and stopped. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you on most of that, but I was more concerned that Natureium, who is a good faith editor concerned about content, might be getting painted with the same brush, which I do not think is fair. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I called it "institutional misogyny" rather than making it more personal. I am convinced of Natureium's good faith but they could stand to recognize their part in the pattern they are part of. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So, what do you say, we do? An AfD, a month, a year? The entire equation of weeding out articles on non-notable subjects to misogyny is thoroughly stupid. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your oversimplification is what is thoroughly stupid. Weeding out non=notable articles by the normal patrolling process used for all other articles is good enough. Making a special effort to weed out articles only on biographies of women is misogynistic. It is clear (and I can supply links if you are so blind as to have not already seen them) that women's biographies are far more likely to be taken to AfD than men, and published studies claim that they face a higher standard of notability as well. I have commented elsewhere that when creating women's biographies (which I have done frequently) I feel I have to look for twice as much notability, clear passes of two or three notability criteria instead of a borderline pass on one, to make the article safe, and even in those cases they sometimes get taken to AfD. In the mean time I see many new articles on men for which there is only one notability claim that isn't even stated in the article, or no claim to be found at all, and nobody notices or cares. All I am asking for is equal treatment: women's biographies get put to the same amount of scrutiny as men, and judged by the same standards. That isn't happening, and this pattern of attacks on creators of women's biographies is part of why. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ask JessWade to write borderline articles about white-male-academics and we can AfD them, at ease. Nominate male bio(s) that fail NACADEMIC and I will indeed !vote delete.
 * It's pretty obvious that you ought not write articles that borderline pass one criterion, irrespective of gender. What you feel, that you have to look is irrelevant. You know very well that passing any one of NACADEMIC criterion is sufficient and I refuse to believe that the community is collectively misogynist enough to bend it's rules to shield male bio(s).
 * Being taken to AfD is a meaningless figure; does they indeed get deleted at AfD? There will always be clueless people like Netoholic, who though operating in good-faith create a lot of mayhem. But, was he intentionally targeting female bio(s) and was a misogynist rather than fundamentally misinterpreting how NACADEMIC works? I don't think so; Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
 * Give me 3 AfDs of female academics, where NACADEMIC was clearly met but, the !voters went nuts and it was deleted. Or, 3 AfDs of male-bio(s) that failed NACADEMIC but the article was kept. (Assuming, that there was no overlap with GNG or other SNGs).
 * I, for my part, devote equal scrutiny to male and female NACADEMIC bios. If you point me to an user, who has created a series of shoddy borderline-notable bios on white male academics, I will evaluate and send the non-notable bunch to AfDs.
 * Jess does a lot of good work but being at the center of attention also means that her articles will be more thoroughly scrutinized.
 * There's hundreds of female subjects that pass NACADEMIC by a mile or so but are redlinks and there's no denying that. I wrote Patricia K. Donahoe and Kathryn Virginia Anderson within the last hour. But, that does hardly mean turning a blind eye to scrutinizing an editor's contributions because they happen to write female-bios. I hope to continue to do so, (whilst writing female bios), at the cost of being labelled as a misogynist, by you. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, if there are more biographies of women being AfD'd, it's because there are more biographies of non-notable women being created. If you want to create a biography on a man, there are far more to choose from because of historic coverage. There are plenty of women that are notable, but people are not being thorough in examining notability before they create the articles. I use the same criteria when I'm creating a biography of a man as I do for a woman. I don't feel like going through all of the articles I've ever created right now, but from what I remember, none of the biographies of women that I've created have been AfD'd. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I, for my part, devote equal scrutiny to male and female NACADEMIC bios. If you point me to an user, who has created a series of shoddy borderline-notable bios on white male academics, I will evaluate and send the non-notable bunch to AfDs.
 * Jess does a lot of good work but being at the center of attention also means that her articles will be more thoroughly scrutinized.
 * There's hundreds of female subjects that pass NACADEMIC by a mile or so but are redlinks and there's no denying that. I wrote Patricia K. Donahoe and Kathryn Virginia Anderson within the last hour. But, that does hardly mean turning a blind eye to scrutinizing an editor's contributions because they happen to write female-bios. I hope to continue to do so, (whilst writing female bios), at the cost of being labelled as a misogynist, by you. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, if there are more biographies of women being AfD'd, it's because there are more biographies of non-notable women being created. If you want to create a biography on a man, there are far more to choose from because of historic coverage. There are plenty of women that are notable, but people are not being thorough in examining notability before they create the articles. I use the same criteria when I'm creating a biography of a man as I do for a woman. I don't feel like going through all of the articles I've ever created right now, but from what I remember, none of the biographies of women that I've created have been AfD'd. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's hundreds of female subjects that pass NACADEMIC by a mile or so but are redlinks and there's no denying that. I wrote Patricia K. Donahoe and Kathryn Virginia Anderson within the last hour. But, that does hardly mean turning a blind eye to scrutinizing an editor's contributions because they happen to write female-bios. I hope to continue to do so, (whilst writing female bios), at the cost of being labelled as a misogynist, by you. &#x222F; WBG converse 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, if there are more biographies of women being AfD'd, it's because there are more biographies of non-notable women being created. If you want to create a biography on a man, there are far more to choose from because of historic coverage. There are plenty of women that are notable, but people are not being thorough in examining notability before they create the articles. I use the same criteria when I'm creating a biography of a man as I do for a woman. I don't feel like going through all of the articles I've ever created right now, but from what I remember, none of the biographies of women that I've created have been AfD'd. Natureium (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Sexism
Or maybe some of us just do not like it being implied we are only doing something because the target is female based upon no evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (For future reference: the context is this edit, in which I was not referring to Slatersteven in particular although others earlier in the conversation may have been. And if you start thinking a remark on a general and regularly-recurring issue is directed at you specifically when it wasn't, that might be a signal that it's a good time to examine whether the effects of your actions match up with your intentions.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is the section that you are discussing is (in effect) about me and my actions. Nor has any effort been made to make it clear in that thread that I am not "one of the usual suspects" and anyone reading that thread might well think it does refer to me. That is all I am going to say for now, other then to add that I agree people should examine their actions more closely and ensure they do not give incorrect impressions.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not why they should examine their actions. It's so they do the right thing more consistently. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

attention to detail
Why in this revert did you undo all three edits of mine, rather than just the daily mail one? I had corrected one ref to point to the original rather than the reprint, and had also nicely-formatted some other refs with full details like author names, etc. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The original web appearance of the publication is much less interesting than the prominence of the newspaper that picked it up as a story. And you should know better than to ever use the Daily Mail as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

She did not "write for The Independent" though. She wrote for The Conversation originally and it was reprinted later - even to some other site I've never heard of - because The Conversation releases articles under Creative Commons license. So per BLPREMOVE, I am considering removing BOTH the reference to writing for The Independent AND the cite_news related to it because its clearly bad sourcing and you're presenting it as if she worked for the Independent, but I'll wait and see if you decide to self-revert because I am AGF. As for the rest, it doesn't explain why you're undoing the formatting of the other refs along with this. This is now the second time you've done a wholesale revert of a sequence of my edits. I don't know if you're doing it on purpose or not, but being unapologetic is not a good sign. -- Netoholic @ 23:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She wrote a piece. That piece was published by The Independent. Therefore she wrote for The Independent. You seem very set on carefully parsing things to try to make them look as insignificant as possible, hardly the neutral attitude I expect of a Wikipedia editor. And the bulk reverts are because your contributions so far have been so uniformly wrongheaded that I can't be bothered to take the time to pore more carefully through them to see whether there is anything salvageably constructive among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So she also wrote for Youth Ki Awaaz and you'll be adding that to the article also? If I copy it to Wikipedia, will you add that she wrote for Wikipedia?  Cmon. "your contributions so far have been so uniformly wrongheaded" - also cmon. YOU are responsible for your edits. Right now it looks like you're just wholesale reverting in order to edit war/battleground. I suggest you just self-revert and let's walk away for the day. -- Netoholic @  23:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is writing for Youth Ki Awaaz a noteworthy accomplishment, something that would credibly count towards WP:PROF? If no, what is the point of even bringing it up. And re your "I suggest that I get my way and you stop reverting my bad edits": how about no. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * She wrote the article - no matter what it cannot be used at all towards WP:PROF. Find a SOURCE that SAYS she wrote for The Independent, like you did the Guardian one. -- Netoholic @  23:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Only according to your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:PROF, in which you ignore the explicit words of the guideline on which kinds of sources can be used for which criteria and make up your own synthesis of WP:PROF and WP:GNG asking for different types of sources that usually don't exist. What's next, requiring sources that say that there are sources that say that she wrote for The Independent? Or maybe sources that say that there are sources that say that there are sources that ... ? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * reductio ad absurdum - you and I both know that notability cannot be proven based on a self-author work (a press release really, which is what the Conversation "article" kinda is considering it is CC licensed for quick reprintability). -- Netoholic @ 23:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know no such thing. It may be true of your circular definition of notability in which notability *means* exactly that, but the rest of us think otherwise. And *every work ever* is self-authored by its author, CC-licensed or no; it's the process of someone else publishing it (as The Independent did in this case) that makes it a publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok well you've now exceeded the 3RR. 1 2 3 4 including reinserting poorly-sourced BLP material. I'd suggest (again) self-reverting and let's lay off this. -- Netoholic @ 00:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, on top of your other failings, you can't count. Link (1) above is not a revert. It was leaving that set of your changes more or less in place, making some tweaks to the reference parameters to clean up mistakes you made (like adding links to a dab page with the subject's name), and adding a citation needed tag where it was needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You undid my addition of publisher links and accessdates in revert #1. Moreso, you're edit warring because in those reverts you undid other changes that you didn't have to and based on the admission above: your contributions so far have been so uniformly wrongheaded that I can't be bothered to take the time to pore more carefully through them to see whether there is anything salvageably constructive among them. Just self-revert and let's sleep on it. -- Netoholic @  00:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also this even earlier edit is a revert because you removed two books from the list. -- Netoholic @ 00:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You are wrong, about many things but in this case also about whether either of those edits was a revert. I am not going to appease you just to make you go away, much as I might wish you would just go away. You are no longer welcome to use this talk page. You have already wasted too much of my time. Any additional comments you leave here will be removed and any additional comments you leave elsewhere will not be answered by me. Do not make the mistake of thinking that I will stop opposing your stupid ideas about notability or anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Bogus yourself
Now you've started calling my comment bogus, I've actually dived into your research "survey" - I don't want to spend too long on this, but:


 * YOU SAY: "May 2: After eliminating 2 non-scientists, we have 2 women and 2 men".
 * Actually:


 * Walter Wiora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by LouisAlain (talk · contribs · new pages (45)) started on 2019-05-02, score: 10
 * McKinsey (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Feminist (talk · contribs · new pages (39)) started on 2019-05-02, score: 20
 * Kate Hevner Mueller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Praemonitus (talk · contribs · new pages (5)) started on 2019-05-02, score: 20
 * Carole Tucker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Liz (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2019-05-02, score: 10

- only the two women are scientists (counting the pschologist), as "Walter Wiora (30 December 1906 – 8 February 1997) was a German musicologist and music historian." (and also a Nazi Party member)
 * YOU SAY: May 1: 1 woman and 3 men.
 * Actually:

- so 1 woman and 2 men.
 * Tohru Eguchi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Mkrampen (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2019-05-01, score: 10
 * New Haven Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Fafhrdrn1154 (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2019-05-01, score: 20
 * Charles Albert Noble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Ferran Mir (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2019-05-01, score: 20
 * Charlotte Werndl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Pirhayati (talk · contribs · new pages (35)) started on 2019-05-01, score: 20


 * YOU SAY: April 30: 1 man.
 * Actually:

- no scientists at all: a journalist & a policeman. and so on, I expect. I make that 3 women and 4 men on those days - not a majority, but certainly way above any figure for actual gender balance in academic science. Johnbod (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alfred W. McCann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs · new pages (19)) started on 2019-04-30, score: 10
 * IM 67118 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Will Orrick (talk · contribs · new pages (3)) started on 2019-04-30, score: 10
 * Nugagaha Kapalle Illangakoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | tools) by Cossde (talk · contribs · new pages (2)) started on 2019-04-30, score: 20
 * Sigh*. They're all subjective. You could go either way on a lot of them. I chose to include the philosopher of science and at least some of the social scientists, but it would be easily justifiable not to have. The bigger problem is that the sample size is too small. This is why we need this sort of thing automated. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I sort of mentioned this at the AfD, but it wasn't really the place to ask for more information about this bot. How are these sorted? For example, from April 30-May 2, I created biographies of 1 male and 3 female scientists, and none of them are listed there. Natureium (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some bot looks for key words and phrases in the articles, scores them, and lists sufficiently high scoring articles. It's very inaccurate. The intention of this specific list is to cover topics related to mathematics and mathematicians (another flaw in the data, since it was supposed to be counting scientists not just mathematicians), but it slops over into the other sciences often. On the other hand, because it's intended to cover mathematics, it is unsurprising if some other scientists whose work or background is less mathematical don't get included. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not a good dataset for any attempt at such a survey (and I'm not unsympathetic to quick and dirty research efforts) but having puzzled over it for a while I still can't see for the life of me how you arrived at the numbers you did. I also counted the pschologist and the philosopher of science, but I don't see a "muckraker" journalist as a social scientist, nor a policeman. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely would have excluded journalists and policemen in my count.

May 2: I kept astronomer Carole Tucker, mathematician John Rigby, crystallographer Clara Brink Shoemaker, and computer scientist Shmuel Sagiv, excluding the psychologist.

May 1: I kept physicist Tohru Eguchi, mathematician Charles Albert Noble, philosopher of science Charlotte Werndl, and applied physics undergraduate Saurav L. Chaudhari.

April 30: I kept operations researcher Alan Mercer.

Etc.

I don't see where you are getting your names and counts from, but those are mine. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, Saurav L. Chaudhari is April 27 and 25, not May 1 (apart from being, as you said an "obvious delete"). Rigby, Shoemaker & Sagiv are also not the dates you say... Johnbod (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I went by the dates of update of the bot report, not the dates the articles were actually created. And if we're going to do statistics on how many articles of what types get deleted, it would be wrong to throw out the ones that are or should be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We were doing statistics on what genders get created. Ideally one might exclude neo-natal deaths, as it were. Johnbod (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

biographical dictionaries
"he used the existence of a Who's Who entry as a rationale for a keep !vote on one academic AfD"

WP:ANYBIO: 3. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

I don't expect you'll rescind that though. -- Netoholic @ 09:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eppstein's assertion. Almost all the publications with that ill-famed title are trash. Read these three pieces. And check out this ResearchGate thread and Quora thread for the general perceptions and standards of inclusion. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Someone should really inform all these libraries! Honestly, there is not much meat to those links you gave - personal opinions, people confusing the Marguis books with actual scams, quibbles about specific details left out of entries, possibly some sour grapes for not being included. -- Netoholic @  11:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * David asked you not to post on his talk page anymore. It's customary to respect such requests. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All that is the American one - afaik the British one (still one volume) is still full of MPs, civil servants, and judges, & is probably fair evidence of notability, not that it seems to be referred to often. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

600-cell
Well, that got my attention :-)

I apologize for not noticing your previous undo of my note about dimensional analogy (back on May 7). You're right, it's an editorialization and I can't source it, so it must come out. I didn't mean to fight your undo and put it back in, what happened was that I totally missed seeing your undo in the history, I had no idea someone had edited me and just thought I had botched my next edit and it had gotten lost somehow (I'm an inexperienced wikipedia editor). So I went back and put it in again! I appreciate that must have seemed argumentative, but it wasn't, really.

Now, as to rolling me all the way back to March - is all my work really unsalvagable? The dimensional analogy note aside, I think it's pretty well sourced -- in fact, when I began editing 600-cell back in March the additions I made were mainly additional Coxeter citations -- I added quite a few Harvard references to specific pages because I like to see the article source the various facts to the place in Coxeter where they came from. So much of an article on polytopes is about presenting Coxeter's concise findings in a way that's accessible to a reader who hasn't read his book, but Coxeter's presentation is so unsurpassable I like to leave breadcrumbs pointing the reader back to the actual page where he says it better than anyone can, in the hopes that he will go buy the book and explore it. Also Coxeter's line drawing illustrations (unfortunately under copyright) are often better than all the 3D graphics we have in these web pages, so I cite Fig 8.2B on page 149 or Table I (ii) as often as I can. Seriously, I'm trying to source everything I put in this article, not just to Coxeter but to any other sources (who have had something to say that Coxeter doesn't seem to say anywhere explicitly, though he probably saw it), at a granularity finer than usual, for the reasons mentioned.

I think everything I wrote has been published before by one researcher or another, just not in this form, and I have tried to source them all. But maybe I have not succeeded. If you still see original research or opinion or errors in it, please point me at those mistakes, so I can fix them and put what remains back into the article.

...Well, I think you noticed, but....
File:Heart Mountain Relocation Center, Heart Mountain, Wyoming. In his barracks home at Block 7 - 21 - NARA - 539206 - Restoration.jpg is done. I'm planning to give it a couple days to settle into articles before nominating it. Make sure it doesn't unduly move.... Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 05:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already left a comment elsewhere, but again, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like to be co-nominator when it goes up? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 05:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know much of anything about the FP process — I have a few "quality image" photos on commons but that's a much lower bar. Does "co-nominator" mean doing something to help or does it just mean getting some credit for the image? Because all I did was point to an existing image — you did all the actual work. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It means whatever we want it to mean. It's one of those things that has never been defined in any way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 23:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as I can take it to mean my introduction to the FP process, then sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Bill Hosokawa's home at the Heart Mountain Relocation Center - it's ready once you've signed. Note that if you Support, you must explicitly say so. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 01:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And there we are! Any questions? Also, feel free to look over the others. There's a requirement for at least 66% support votes, and at least five supports. I tend to not vote on things with more than five supports and no opposes, because they've basically passed, but there's plenty of things still up in the air as to whether they'll pass or not. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 04:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will. I have voted in the annual best image contest the last few years, in which the candidates are the commons FPs; I guess the standards for en are similar? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, with a bit more consideration for encyclopedic value. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.6% of all FPs 13:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) 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 Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Diamond-free
Hello David,

In the Multitree article, you explained your last |last revert by this message:

"Let's not link random terms just because they have the same names. The diamonds of diamond-free partial orders are different things than the diamond graphs you linked to."

But isn't the graph ({a, b, c, d}, {(a, b), (a, c), (d, b), (d, c)}) a multitree? Because according to the definition in the article, the set of nodes reachable from any node forms a tree, since:


 * from a: ({a, b, c}, {(a, b), (a, c)}) is a tree;
 * from b: ({b}, ∅}) is a tree;
 * from c: ({c}, ∅}) is a tree;
 * from d: ({b, c, d}, {(d, b), (d, c)}) is a tree.

A multitree is also defined as a diamond-free partial order. But if we don't use the diamond graph definition that requires an internal edge, the reachability relation of the above graph (which is identical to the edge set here) is a partial order with a diamond, which contradicts the definition. However if we use the diamond graph definition, the reachability relation is a partial order without diamonds since the internal edge is missing, which is consistent with the definition. Did I mistake something?

— Maggyero (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Multitrees are directed graphs. The diamond graph is an undirected graph. So there is no way for them to be the same thing. There is more than one way of orienting the edges of the diamond graph to form a transitive acyclic directed graph (which maybe you can think of as being the same thing as a partial order, but really is still not because it's a graph not a relation — unless you define graphs as relations and don't ever talk about multigraphs). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Now I understand my mistake: I did not consider the orientation of the edges in the diamond definition given in the Multitree article, so I thought the above multitree example had a diamond, but since the edges have not the same orientation it is not the case, so the multitree is diamond-free as expected.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I have another issue (not related to the first). If you take the above directed graph but invert the (d, b) edge for instance, so ({a, b, c, d}, {(a, b), (a, c), (b, d), (d, c)}), I think we have a problem: the directed graph is no more a multitree according to the first definition of the Multitree article, because the set of nodes reachable from any node does not always form a tree, since:


 * from a: ({a, b, c, d}, {(a, b), (a, c), (b, d), (d, c), (a, d)}) is not a tree;
 * from b: ({b, c, d}, {(b, d), (d, c)}) is a tree;
 * from c: ({c}, ∅}) is a tree;
 * from d: ({c, d}, {(d, c)}) is a tree.


 * However the reachability relation of the directed graph is still a partial order without diamond, so the directed graph is a multitree according to the second definition of the Multitree article. What do you think?
 * — Maggyero (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * That DAG is not transitively reduced. Edge ac is redundant with path abdc. The equivalence between multitrees and diamond-free partial orders only works for transitively reduced DAGs. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You asked:
 * "Why did you remove the description of how these two structures are equivalent?"


 * Because it is already in the introduction. Why repeating? And in the introduction the non transitive property of the directed graph was missing so I added it.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The introduction says THAT they're equivalent, not HOW they're equivalent. And the non-transitive property is not needed in the introduction to state that they are equivalent; the definitions of the two structures given there are adequate as is. Transitive reduction is how one goes from a poset to its equivalent multitree, just as reachability is how one goes from a multitree to a diamond-free poset. Your edit did not state that transitive reduction is how one goes from a poset to a multitree; you stated only that the poset is transitively reduced. And your edit did not state that reachability is how to go from a multitree to a poset; you discussed reachability only in other contexts. You again threw in the unrelated diamond graph, in a way that made it seem like it was related to these concepts (because otherwise why would one try to distinguish them; multitrees should also be distinguished from coffee cups but we don't need to say that in the article). And you stated "THE" equivalent concept in order theory is the diamond-free poset, but that is merely AN equivalent concept. So your edits were not improvements, in multiple ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think that I have found the source of my confusion. It lies in this sentence:
 * "a directed acyclic graph in which the set of nodes reachable from any node form a tree"


 * The word "reachable" made me think that one had to take the transitive closure of the DAG before checking that for each vertex, the subgraph induced by the set of reachable vertices was a tree. But of course that is not the case, otherwise the candidates would be only the DAGs whose directed path lengths were at most 1.
 * So, to sum up:
 * For a directed graph:
 * For each vertex of a directed graph, the subgraph induced by the set of reachable vertices is a tree → the reachability relation of the directed graph is a diamond-free partial order.
 * Such a directed graph is called a multitree.
 * For a partial order:
 * A partial order is diamond-free → for each vertex of the directed graph identified by the transitive reduction of the partial order, the subgraph induced by the set of reachable vertices is a tree.
 * Such a partial order is called a multitree.
 * I also feel that I understand better the difference between a multitree and a polytree: I noticed that while a polytree forbids all cycles (directed cycles and semicycles), a multitree fordbids directed cycles and only some semicycles, the ones that have less than 2 attracting vertices (and consequently less than 2 repulsing vertices, since I noticed that the number of attracting vertices in a cycle is always equal to the number of repulsing vertices—what I call "attracting vertex" is a vertex with out-degree equal to 0 and what I call "diverging vertex" is one with in-degree equal to 0, but I don't know if it is standard terminology). Correct me if I am wrong.
 * — Maggyero (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the partial orders are called multi-trees. They're called diamond-free partial orders. And your attracting and diverging vertices are usually called sinks and sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "I don't think the partial orders are called multi-trees. They're called diamond-free partial orders."
 * "I don't think the partial orders are called multi-trees. They're called diamond-free partial orders."


 * Okay. But then why stating the opposite in the introduction?
 * "a multitree may describe either of two equivalent structures: a directed acyclic graph (DAG) […] or a partially ordered set (poset) […] (also called a diamond-free poset)"


 * To me it should be reworded to this:
 * "a multitree is a directed acyclic graph (DAG) […]. An equivalent structure of a multitree is a partially ordered set (poset) […] (also called a diamond-free poset)"


 * Maggyero (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Grünbaum–Rigby configuration
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)
The article Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Garden of Eden (cellular automaton) 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 Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, and for the barnstar! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Scientiometrics
You reverted my edit on the page "Eridos number" and left the following comment:
 * The word "scientometrics" does not appear on the talk page and the E number is not a serious scientometric.

I must object that the word "scientometric" does appear on the talk page. I double-checked. While the Eridos number may not be a serious scietometric, it is not a serious subject at all, and yet it is one of the most read mathematics articles on Wikipedia. Three reverts constitutes an edit war: Please get consensus before reverting edits. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. While the topic is disputed and under discussion it should remain out of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Klaus Roth
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

CITEVAR
Hi David, regarding your partial revert of my edit to the Lobachevsky (song) article: I actually wasn't aware that "citation" and "cite news" / "cite web" / "cite journal" were considered citation variations, sorry. Having said that, I don't understand why the difference matters (genuine confusion, explanation welcome). I actually thought that "citation" was an older form that was still used but that the "cite XXX" styles were the modern alternatives / replacements. I also know that a magazine is not the same as a journal, though citation content is the same so I have regularly used "cite journal" for a magazine reference. It renders the same in appearance, I think, so the difference in coding seems to me to be unimportant.

I know that citation styles have led to some epic edit wars on WP, and certainly don't have interest in one – I have no intention of reverting you, for example – but I am puzzled by why the difference you have highlighted is important from your perspective. I get why the template / no template issue is taken as important – though it also strikes me as an issue of little if any relevance to readers. I often clean up references, especially when details are missing (like the volume and issue of the magazine I added to Lobachevsky), and don't want to be upsetting people. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not actually the same in appearance. The cite series of templates. Separate. Everything by. Periods. The citation template, instead, uses commas. (Also, citation works with the harv/sfn series of templates to create short parenthetical references or footnotes that point to longer citations elsewhere; cite doesn't.) There are also subtle differences in appearance between cite journal and cite magazine in how they format volumes and page numbers, e.g. vs  —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Dispute
I have tagged you in a dispute on the dispute resolution noticeboard. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIR
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Ethics in Mathematics
You've undone a number of edits on Ethics_in_mathematics without commenting on the talk page. Please discuss why referenced contributions were deleted. Ca3tki (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason should have been clear from my edit summary. Do I have to go leave a template on your user talk page too, so that you see it in the right place? The reason was "mass quantities of unsourced editorialization". I.e., WP:NOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

 * Looks yum. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Bryna Kra
In your opinion, is this notice of the American Mathematical Society a reliable source for the full date of birth and place of birth? And if so, could you please edit the article accordingly? I won't touch that biography anymore. --bender235 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable source, definitely. Should it be added: I'm not sure, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. We can at least add the place; I don't think that's as sensitive as the exact date. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Kra's full date of birth appears in the Knowledge Graph once one googles her name. What privacy is there to protect exactly? bender235 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said, I'm not sure, but I've certainly received emails in the past from subjects complaining about stuff like this appearing here even though it can be found if one digs. And in this case you appear to be engaged in unintentional circular reasoning. The reason her date of birth appears in the Knowledge Graph is that they got it from Wikidata. This is actually a frequent problem: Subject wants data removed from Wikipedia because Google displays it in a way that makes it look like it came from Wikipedia, but changing the Wikipedia article has no effect, because the data Google is displaying is from Wikidata. At least this time it's properly sourced; usually Wikidata entries aren't. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably. Or they found it on the German Wikipedia. Or the Portuguese one. Or the Library of Congress, where I found it and added it to her English article in good faith. But I'm sure censoring the article in the name of privacy still goes great lengths to protect her from identity theft. Somehow. --bender235 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you would feel less sarcastic about this if you were the one getting angry emails about private information being posted on Wikipedia (when it isn't very private and is actually on Wikidata rather than Wikipedia). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not being sarcastic about someone's sincere request for privacy. We certainly have to respect these wishes, and that's what we have OTRS for. I just don't think this privacy theater we're conducting here brings us any closer to protecting people's privacy. --bender235 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Civility
Hi, your edit summary for this edit was unwarranted. I took the time to contribute to the article and made it more accessible for people who use assistive aids, and you took the opportunity – over three words – for an unnecessary swideswipe. I was being deliberately broad with my language because I didn't want to tread on toes or misuse terminology; all you needed to do (and only if you wanted to) was tighten it up, perhaps with a constructive edit summary. I hope you treat other editors, your colleagues and your students with more decency than you've shown tonight. Brammers (talk/c) 20:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was merely a critique of untight writing, with a reductio ad absurdum demonstrating what was untight about it, and a pointer to a relevant essay. If you think that sort of thing is an attack, then I don't know how to make it less attack-y, other than writing with obvious insincerity about how perfect your language already is but we could just make it a little better... —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Tightened up caption" would suffice, and wouldn't risk coming across as abrasive – as you've done again with the insinuation that I claim my language is perfect. I don't want or need adoration and flattery for my edits, but I don't expect someone to deflate my supposedly swollen ego over them. Particularly when their witty remark is a dozen times longer than the 'long and inane' text they removed. Brammers (talk/c) 20:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you're making it all about you. I said nothing about what you might think about the perfection of your own language, nor about the size of your ego. Those are things you're reading into what I wrote rather than things I actually wrote. It was all about how to describe the language itself, not about your feelings. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hamiltonicity of odd graphs STOC reference
I just noticed that the reference to the STOC paper on the Hamiltonicity of Kneser graphs that was deleted and that you restored has also been deleted from the page on Odd graphs, and replaced by four irrelevant "non-COI" references. Maybe you can spend the time and correct this as well. Thanks and best regards. Torsten Mütze (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry for Patrick Harran
Dear Mr. Epstein, I recently spent considerable time updating my Wikipedia page. It was subsequently deleted because I did not cite "a reliable source". I apologize, but I do not know the proper protocol for doing so. Could you please give instructions, and restore the Wiki entry to its most recently edited state. Thank you for your time. Patrick Harran 169.232.140.80 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You should not be updating the page about you at all. It is not "your" page. Writing about yourself in this way is likely to lead to calls for the page to be deleted altogether. See WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd M. Trefethen
Really nice work on this DYK, I enjoyed it and found the hook engaging. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Lloyd M. Trefethen
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Your deletion of Transaction Processing Performance Council
It is unclear to me why this was deleted. (Not being an admin, I can't see the text of the deleted page.) They are a notable organization in the IT industry (for sources, see e.g., , ), so I think they are notable enough for an article. Thanks. SJK (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The book I cited above appears to be possibly self-published. Here is one that isn't: SJK (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All I deleted (two years ago!) was a redirect from that title to Online transaction processing. There had been a separate TPPC article earlier, but it was redirected by someone else because it did not have the sources at that time to pass WP:ORG. And then the online transaction processing article was deleted as well, for the same reason. So I deleted the corresponding redirect. The online transaction processing article was soon created again, but I didn't see the point of re-creating the redirect. Given that history, if you have the proper sources to create an article now (I didn't check your links) I don't think you should need to go through a lot of bureaucracy to do so. It's not like there's a full deletion discussion and consensus that you'd be going against. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are you willing and able to restore the history? I want to see if any of the old content in the history is usable. SJK (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. See (still a redirect) and its history. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! SJK (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts
Table 2 of this source supplies a partial list of organisations that participate in metascience. -- Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * AAAS may participate in anthropology, as the publisher of a journal that publishes a lot of anthropology articles. Nevertheless that does not make AAAS an anthropology, a piece of anthropology, or an appropriate member of the anthropology category. The same is true for any other branch of study that they may participate in, metascience among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From the source:
 * Meta-research is an evolving scientific discipline that aims to evaluate and improve research practices. It includes thematic areas of methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives (how to do, report, verify, correct, and reward science).
 * These five standards (how to do, report, verify, correct, and reward science) determine weather or not a given thing falls into the realm of metascience. According to it's Wikipedia page, AAAS was established for the purpose of "promoting cooperation among scientists, defending scientific freedom, encouraging scientific responsibility, and supporting scientific education and science outreach". This purpose overlap significantly with the five standards that determine a metascience, but not have nothing to do with anthropology, witch is why the source characteristics it as a metascientific organisation and not an anthropological one. I agree with your decision to remove the "science policy" category. I didn't check closely enough before adding that one. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From the first line of your quote: "is a scientific discipline". So is anthropology. That doesn't mean it's the right category for an organization that does work in a broad array of scientific disciplines. And none of your purpose statements are even vaguely about the academic discipline of studying scientific practice. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that AAAS is itself a scientific discipline, only that it is an organisation that participates in this discipline. Metascience and AAAS both aim to improve research practices with the goal of higher quality and more efficient science. Metascience uses scientific means to achieve this goal, but the definition of metascience is sometimes loosened to include the betterment of the scientific process even through unscientific means. Therefor it may be eligible to for the metascience category, unless you think it necessary to create a second category for metascience-related organisations.
 * AAAS uses both scientific and unscientific means to achieve the goal of better scientific practices. Since the AAAS has a wide breadth which goes far beyond metascience, I do agree that it's classification as a metascience organisation could be a matter of debate. Therefor I am willing to let the removal of the category to stand. However, I do think that the category should be returned to the pages on "International Council for Science" and ArXiv. ArXiv is also a project in science for the sole purpose of bettering scientific research. "International Council for Science" is an organization for the betterment of science, but is much more keenly focused on metascientific goals. than AAAS. As stated on it's page, the ICS focuses on three areas: International Research Collaboration, Science for Policy, and Universality of Science. Better collaboration and better (evidence based) science policy are clearly metascientific goals. Universality involves
 * "the free and responsible practice of science is fundamental to scientific advancement and human and environmental well-being. Such practice, in all its aspects, requires freedom of movement, association, expression and communication for scientists, as well as equitable access to data, information, and other resources for research. It requires responsibility at all levels to carry out and communicate scientific work with integrity, respect, fairness, trustworthiness, and transparency, recognising its benefits and possible harms."
 * This seems basically like open science, which has also been categorized as metascientific. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're not claiming that AAAS is a discipline, or a topic of research within that discipline, why are you trying to put it into a category whose members are supposed to be topics within that discipline? Learn some basic type theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see that you want a more specific category. I will create a category called "Metascience-related organizations". --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond the type theory, you also need to read WP:NOTDEFINING. It describes how central a category needs to be in order to apply it to something. In this case, not central enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will keep that in mind. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy Admin Day!!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day! Best wishes, Mjs1991 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Thanks! I should do something administrative, I guess. Anyone want to be blocked? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm Manager27. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kynea number without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Manager27 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I was reverting the edits of a known block-evading sockpuppet. See WP:DENY and the edit history of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong counting sequence?
Dear David, as you were the original author of the page, would you like to check whether the issue I mentioned on the page Talk:Fence (mathematics) is indeed valid, or whether I am overlooking anything. Thanks and best regards. Torsten Mütze (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Jane Forer Gentleman article
Dear Mr. Eppstein,

I am brand new to editing Wikipedia so apologies for any confusion in the additions made to your important and interesting article on Dr. Jane Forer Gentleman, still living.

That said, I must tell you that I met Dr. Gentleman through a French book/conversation club in Rockville, Maryland, and that the info I added is first-hand sourced by myself (drivers license with date of birth, actual viewing of her awards, examination of her lengthy cv which I am certain she would allow me to forward to you, publications, etc.). Her curriculum vitae was the basis for the most recent UAB Norwood Award.

Do you think you might reconsider incorporating the additions I submitted while helping me to source them properly?

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to working with you on improving the Wikipedia entry on Dr. Gentleman.

Sincerely,

Mary Dominick mfdominick@yahoo.com Mfdominick 07:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfdominick (talk • contribs)
 * Information from the cv can be used for factual (non-opinion) claims on the article. Everything else is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Everything in a biography of a living person must have an adequate source. Sometimes that means leaving out things that we know are true, because they are not published. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nicely said
Appreciated your comment on the drama page, “Every time, it eventually turned out that management was not forthcoming for good reasons but had not been overreacting.” I worked in state government for a number of years and did a bit of labor law in the process, and your observations are spot on. Real life has many examples like this. Well said. Montanabw (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Your recent question
Concerning your recent question, it probably has something to do with reactance (which frankly, we're all guilty of in the Fram case) or whatever the equivalent of white fragility is applied to internet culture ("internet fragility"?). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's because twitter is seen as 'serious business' in some circles, and that 'going to twitter' is akin to 'appearing on national TV' or something. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting and disturbing answer. Similar to the BBC effect. If you work for them, or are perceived to work for them, and call them into disrepute, your out.  scope_creep Talk  15:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Notability
Hi How are you? I came across this draft and from several of your comment thought I would ask you if the submissions subject is notable: Draft:Bryan J. Traynor. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  15:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He is a Fellow of the American Neurological Association but their top level of honorary membership is "Honorary Fellow", and he's not on that list, so I think he falls short of WP:PROF. He also has heavily cited publications in Google Scholar, in a high-citation field, in most cases with many other authors and not as first author; the first-author papers have citations 386 ("Clinical features of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis") and 155 ("An outcome study of riluzole"), and he has an h-index of 62, likely enough for #C1. The "director's award" is a grant, not a prize, but the Derek Denny-Brown award looks significant, and the Potamkin Prize actually has its own article, so he also has a case for #C2. I'd say yes, likely notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Succinct answer. I wasn't sure, but with such a large citation count and good index and seemingly not much else, I thought the article might have been subject to Afd, hence the request. A gifted and smart man and in scenario would be notable I think. I will put it through to main-space.   scope_creep Talk  19:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Garden of Eden (cellular automaton)
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

July events from Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Winning
David, I hope you win the lottery, and whether you actually do, I hope your life gets better. Best,  starship .paint  (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uh, thanks? But I don't think the lottery would give me anything I really want or need. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. May you get what you need, then.  starship .paint  (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)