User talk:David Eppstein/2020b

Thank You
Thanks for the help with Luis Miguel Romero Fernández…

"Fight the Good Fight Every Moment"

Roberto221 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Fauci
I don't understand the edit summary of your revert at Lisa Fauci. Notability guidelines don't mandate a lead sentence with a cryptic job title for the masses. There's no problem introducing it later with an explanation of its significance to those not familiar with Tulane (or perhaps specifically its Math department). My $.02. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's her job title it's her job title. She isn't "a professor", she's an endowed professor, with a specific title, and having the title shows her rank within academia. The significance is not to Tulane or to mathematics, but to being a professor in general. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

152.44.139.223
I just saw your rv in my watchlist. It looks like this anon is only here to misgender people, but they might not be so frequent at it that they merit a block. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The same IP address seems to have a persistent pattern of editing over several weeks, rather than changing addresses, so maybe a block would work. I left a stronger warning this time, but if I see it again I would consider blocking. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

copyrighted material added to Wikipedia
Dear David, Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

I received a message suggesting that "Deleted page Copula in Signal Processing (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Text copied from http://www.academia.edu/download/50416335/Embedded_Correlation_in_Time_Varying_Cop20161119-22911-25awa7.pdf) "

Please note that this technical note was part of my MSc thesis submitted in 2007. The work was not peer-reviewed, but it was uploaded to ResearchGate in 2015 by me and had a DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2516.7844. I am not sure why this academia.edu website has this article published on their website and from where did they get a copy of this report? Not just that, they certainly do not own the copyrights of this material. I did not share this document with academia.edu. Perhaps, they are infringing the copyrights. Also, I tried to open the link you have mentioned above, however, this page seems to be broken, and no article is listed at this URL within academia.edu.

Would it be appropriate to contact academia.edu website and ask them to remove it? In addition, should I contact ResearchGate and ask them for permission? What is the correct approach to follow here, please advise?

Thank you User: Earthianyogi Earthianyogi (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a hosting site for your old preprints. There are other sites for that. Wikipedia articles should be expository and written for a general audience, and everything in them should be based on published sources; see Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing and Wikipedia's prohibition on publication of original research. I strongly suspect that, even if the copyright issue could be cleared, these would remain as obstacles to your putting this material on Wikipedia in this form. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If the copyright issue could be cleared, I am happy to re-write it. How would I know that the copyright issue has cleared? Earthianyogi (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When you have written the material freshly, in an encyclopedic and properly sourced style, without copying anything from copyrighted sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"without copying anything from copyrighted sources." - I think I just explained that I did not copy it from anywhere. It is my own work. The url at academia.edu website that you have provided is a broken link and does not work. I am struggling to understand why do you call it copying? It is the academia.edu, who is at the fault of publishing my work on their website without my consent. Earthianyogi (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not paying attention to what I am writing. Your material is not suitable for Wikipedia in its present form. Do not re-add it in that form. If you do it will likely be put up for deletion for a different reason than copyright. As for "it is my own work": how was I supposed to know that? It is forbidden for me to investigate the real-world identities of Wikipedia-editor pseudonyms (see WP:OUTING). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I go it the first time you explained, that is why i said, "I am happy to re-write it." I can send you an updated copy of the revised text for your review before posting. Thanks for taking the time to explain the matter. I am new to Wikipedia Earthianyogi (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How can I obtain the text that was removed? There are plenty of equations in it, so I could probably reuse it to insert the equations in the new article? Earthianyogi (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Review request
Could review this revised draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Copula_in_signal_processing ? thx Earthianyogi (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Excessive reversion
I see that you have repeatedly made reversions to pages that I've edited involving women in statistics. I think that you should review when to revert as your reverts seem excessive. I'm going to avoid editing women in statistic pages on purpose to avoid you because I find people who think that they "own" wikipedia pages and should always have the final say annoying. (I'm just leaving this here and don't plan to reply. Good day.) static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ  23:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In case anyone cares, the context is the single revert I made today (the only recent one that I can remember or find) to Diane Lambert (diff), having nothing to do with the subject being a female statistician and everything to do with the fact that inserting the uninformative section title "Biography" into the middle of an article that is, itself, a biography, at a location chosen only because it is after the first paragraph and not at a point that marks a division between summary and detail, is so poor a way of introducing structure to the article that it is worse than having no section titles at all. If would refrain from doing that in general, and not merely to the articles I watchlist, I think it would be an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we also had a minor disagreement three weeks ago on Ivy Liu over whether the line "BS, MS (Iowa State University), PhD (University of Florida)" on Liu's web site can be used to infer that her bachelor's degree is from Iowa State. Somehow that adds up to repeated and excessive, I guess. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Calendrical Calculations
Hello! Your submission of Calendrical Calculations at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Convex hull
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Convex hull 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of C. Doris Hellman
The article C. Doris Hellman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:C. Doris Hellman 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 Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Math books
I've noticed your articles on mathematics books in the new-article-bot report now and then of late, and I always enjoy reading them when I do. Thanks. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this led me to create an article on a textbook I've used a few times as a reference. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I put it up for Did You Know, for the fun of it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

So 1/undefined is discouraged, but...
...is it ok if I use 1⁄undefined to clean up the fractions? It seems to be ok by MOS:MATH, and at least I find it to look better, but I want to know what you think (since you pointed this out to me in the first place). – (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * sfrac is ok in math articles that use the math templates to format their formulas. I would prefer not to replace &lt;math&gt; formatting with it, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS HOWEVER, your use of it in Compound of three octahedra is not ok. The reason is that in that context the "{9/3}" is not a fraction, but a specific notation used to describe star polygons. That notation is conventionally written in-line, using a slash; changing it to a vertical fraction is incorrect notation. You can tell it's not a fraction because it's not in lowest terms (and would again be incorrect to reduce it to lowest terms). And in general, vertical fractions should used with caution, because (compared to an in-line slashed fraction) the text is smaller, making it less readable; I don't think your $&pi;⁄4$ is an improvement over $\pi$/4. It's especially not an improvement because at my current screen size it slams into the boundary of the image next to it making it even harder to read. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The convention is not totally universal; Coxeter in Regular Polytopes uses both vertical fractions like $5⁄2$ and horizontal ones like 5/2 (even on the same page, e.g. p. 115 of my 3rd edition). (Then again, this might be because he explicitly restricted the notation to cases where the numerator and denominator are coprime back on p. 94.) But I agree with David's point that vertical fractions are smaller and hence harder to read. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While no convention is ubiquitous, I think in-line is predominant and preferable. It looks like Schläfli symbol may need some work in this regard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd counter that people use inline fractions only for convenience, and that if Coxeter used it even once, the correct notation is vertical. But if the consensus is that inline is fine for Schläfli symbols, I won't complain. By the way, I changed way more Schläfli fractions than only those on the three octahedra article. Should I go and revert them, or do I just leave them there? – OfficialURL (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not just for convenience that people use horizontal rather than vertical fractions (when writing fractions, let alone other notation that resembles fractions but means something else). It is also a matter of style. Horizontal fractions break up the smooth flow of lines of text less than do vertical fractions, and fit better especially in situations where some other amount of verticality is used; for instance, $$x^{\frac{2}{5}}$$ is almost always the wrong format for inline formulas (look what it does to the line spacing!), and $$x^{2/5}$$ is almost always the right format. Even in a display formula, I would prefer the horizontal fraction in the exponent, at least for this simple example. Anyway, yes, I think it would be better to revert the Shläfli symbols, lest more editors get the mistaken idea that they are fractions and can be manipulated as fractions by reducing to simplest terms or some other such atrocity. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, if they were just fractions, the symbols {3} and &#123;$6⁄2$&#125; would be synonyms, which is not the case. I'll revert all the instances I come across. – OfficialURL (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, actually, let me get this clear. Writing something like &#123;$5⁄2$&#125; is misleading, because the Schläfli symbol doesn't really take rational numbers as arguments, because it's also used to describe compounds. But what if I referred to a $5⁄2$-gon? That surely must be correct (even if not typeset optimally). Wouldn't it? – OfficialURL (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Integer complexity
The enthusiastic but inexperienced new editor at Integer complexity has just emailed me directly, including copies of previous correspondence. I have asked him on his talk page not to do this again. If your're not already doing so could I ask you to watch his talk page and to weigh in there if I'm saying anything improper? Thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What you wrote there looks ok to me. He's also been sending emails to me, which I've been ignoring. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Convex hull
The article Convex hull you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Convex hull 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Question about closing MfDs and AfDs
Thank you for closing up my AfD Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari (2nd nomination). For future reference, if I see that an article that I have nominated or voted on has been speedy deleted, is it okay for me to close out the discussion, or does it still need to be done by a separate party from those who have nominated/voted on it? Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For an article that has already been speedy deleted, I don't think it is really problematic for anyone to close out the discussion, because they're not really making any decisions, just recognizing what has already happened. But if I've already participated in the discussion, I would still leave it for someone else to do, to avoid even the appearance of violating the discussion rules. There's no rush; someone else will be along soon enough to close it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Hersom
Hey, ! I appreciate your edits regarding the new Bobby Hersom article.

I wanted to write totally to sate my curiosity... how did you encounter the new article? Just via the new article queue? Just interested to get some insight into what led you to the page. = paul2520 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Via User:AlexNewArtBot/MathSearchResult, which I check regularly. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Escher like tilings
Hi. You removed my image from the article about Tessellation.

Your question : where are the tiles ?

The answer: "If you question the relevance of these images to Escher, check out his Circle Limit series (especially III and IV). In his own words: "It is to be doubted whether there exist today many ... artists of any kind, to whom the desire has come to penetrate to the depths of infinity.... There is only one possible way of ... obtaining an "infinity" entirely enclosed within a logical boundary line.... The largest ... shapes are now found in the center and the limit of infinite number and infinite smallness is reached at the circumference.... Not one single component ever reaches the edge. For beyond that there is "absolute nothingness." And yet this round world cannot exist without the emptiness around it, not simply because "within" presupposes "without", but also because it is out there in the "nothingness" that the center points of the arcs that go to build up the framework are fixed with such geometric exactitude."

What do you think about it ?

--Adam majewski (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are quoting a paragraph of artspeak bullshit with little relevance to the actual question. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. In you opinion where is there a place in wikipedia for such image ? --Adam majewski (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It's kind of the wrong question. The right questions are usually something more like: what image would best make clear the concepts in this article, has someone already made available that image, and if not how can it best be constructed? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Brian Epstein
Are you in anyway, related to Brian Epstein or Jeffrey Epstein? I don't mean to be discourteous, but I am rather curious. --Boil-in-the-Bag (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, beyond the general principle that if you go far enough back everyone is related to everyone. Note that my name is not even spelled the same as theirs, and their spelling is a pretty common surname. The only relatives I know of with the same surname as me are close relatives (mother, father, wife, children, brother, and brother's family). I've traced several generations back from there and not found any others. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello David. This editor is now blocked for their trolling. Feel free to remove this whole thread if you wish. Best regards and stay safe. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

re: Editor Comments to My Edit Request for "2020 Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States" -- Section "Preparations'"
Dear Prof. Eppstein,

I'm reaching out to you because I perceived, correctly or incorrectly, that an Editor made a snarky and judgmental reply to, and deleted, a perfectly reasonable, well-documented submission I made.

Like you, I'm academically trained; I received my Ph.D. in History from UC Berkeley, and was for many years a Professor of American History in the UC System and then tenured at the University of San Francisco. All of which is to say, I take research seriously and would not submit something specious, frivolous or polemical to Wikipedia.

The specifics: I submitted a request for Adding Substantive Info to the "Preparations" section of the Wikipedia article on the "2020 Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States."

I requested that the following two sentences (based entirely on a New York Times article) be added:

In the final year of the administration of George W. Bush, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (a division of the Department of Health and Human Services) "estimated that an additional 70,000 machines would be required in a moderate influenza pandemic." However, while the administration of Barack Obama soon after made a contract with a private firm (Newport Medical Instruments, subsequently a subsidiary of Covidien) for the production of up to 40,000 ventilators, the government failed to secure that order, leaving the national stockpile of ventilators seriously underprepared for the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States.

[The quotation source is: Kulish, Nicholas; Kliff, Sarah; Silver-Greenberg, Jessica (March 29, 2020). "The U.S. Tried to Build a New Fleet of Ventilators. The Mission Failed." The New York Times]

I also added to my request a note of thanks and mentioned that I am a donor to Wikipedia. I did this merely as a pleasantry and a sign that I appreciate Wikipedia.

The Editor in question responded to me like this:

First they noted that my having been a donor "has no bearing on what editors publish on the wiki," as if I assumed it did, and as if I were trying to leverage my suggestion for approval. That was a gratuitous statement by the Editor.

Second, and more importantly, this Editor wrote: "In regards to the sentence you've managed to get added (However, while the administration of Barack Obama soon after made a contract with a private firm (Newport Medical Instruments, subsequently a subsidiary of Covidien) for the production of up to 40,000 ventilators...), that has been removed which has rendered your proposed addition moot, not to mention that it would be neutralised in tone should it have been added."

I found this comment to be snarky and objectionable and this action to be wrong. The Editor saying "the sentence you managed to get added" suggests that I somehow did something to insinuate my suggestion into the Wikipedia page, as opposed to what I did do: make an Edit Request through the site's page for Edit Requests!

As to the substantive issue, I cannot see how this statement, which is an accurate paraphrase of a New York Times article, is in any way NOT neutral in tone: "However, while the administration of Barack Obama soon after made a contract with a private firm (Newport Medical Instruments, subsequently a subsidiary of Covidien) for the production of up to 40,000 ventilators. the government failed to secure that order, leaving the national stockpile of ventilators seriously underprepared for the COVID-19 epidemic in the United States." If you consult the New York Times article I supplied as my source, an article on why the US ended up with insufficient ventilators ten years after a contract was made to supply them, you'll see that the article is subtitled "The Mission Failed." (I.E. the government failed to obtain the ventilators.)

This Editor's signature is: Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is under: "Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020"

Thank you for taking valuable time to consider this complaint, and I hope you'll give me your response to it.

Best regards,

Andrew Heinze andrewheinze.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.247.71 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User page links
Hi, I'm aware that the article for you (David Eppstein) has a link to your user page. However, the page didn't state in any way (other than the link itself) that you are a Wikipedian. I checked Category:Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia user page links and found that two other articles, Owen Jones and Steven Rubenstein were notable for things other than editing Wikipedia and yet had a userpage link. What is your take on this? Do you think that there should be a line stating that "Eppstein is also a Wikipedia administrator..." (as in the case of Rubenstein) or should such links be removed altogether? Of course, for people like Jimbo where the person's on-wiki contribs are significant, this doesn't hold; what I'm talking about is the other cases. Thanks! aStay healthy and safe, from Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 14:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * addendum: no source yet for Wikipedia editing claims except this, which certainly does not seem like a reasonable source. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My general feeling is that issues of content in the article about me are someone else's problem, unless there's something significantly incorrect. But anyway, yes, we need reliable sources to have anything more than an external link to the user page. I'm not trying to hide my Wikipedia activity from that article but I don't really know of good sources for that aspect of what I do. You could use my cv to say that I'm a Wikipedia admin but there's no detail there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I checked online for sources pf the other two people editing ability and all I found with the slightest of reliability (and not a fork) is this: for Owen Jones. I guess the way to do things is to remove the unsubstantiated statement of Steven Rubenstein's editing history (no RS) and remove the UP links except for Jones. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math  (Message) 02:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a brief mention here and another here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit to Sara van de Geer
Hi David, I notice you reverted an edit I made to Sara van de Geer, and I agree, the wording would have been a bit ambiguous. Thank you for pointing that out in your detailed edit summary. I have now modified it to say "is a professor" instead of "works as a professor", which I hope is more natural and unambiguous, what do you think? Thanks again, ChromeGames923 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your modified version. (Some people might complain about the repeated verb "is"..."is" but I won't; I think trying to avoid that sort of repetition can be worse than allowing it.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Calendrical Calculations
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein/HarvErrors.js
I don't see what this does different from User:Svick/HarvErrors.js. If it doesn't, I suggest you U1 delete this and direct its users to use User:Svick/HarvErrors.js instead. This would simplify user choices between your version of the script and Svick's. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see why having a redundant copy of a script that does the same thing is an actual problem. However there is at least one difference that I find significant (you may not): mine is full-protected. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't really see what that changes, user scripts can only be edited by interface admins. Full protection adds nothing there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Klaus Roth
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Klaus Roth 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 Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A K Peters
I have put the article up at WP:RM, in line with some comments in the recent deletion discussion. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Robust geometric computation
Dear Dr. David Eppstein,

I don’t know if this is something you are familiar with but, in your opinion, is this draft page Draft:Robust geometric computation worthy of moving to mainspace? Is it already covered somewhere? (I will ask the math project if you don’t have an opinion). Regards, —- Taku (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a real issue, explained very badly. It could be a valid encyclopedia topic, but not with this writeup. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I have turned it into a short stub and moved it to mainspace, where it can be completed by someone someday. -- Taku (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

alledged copyright claim
You reverted my edit on the p-vs-no problem article on the basis of a blatant violation of the copyright policy. However, the source was clearly stated (Woeginger's p-np-page) and I did not take any sentences directly from the source, but did paraphrase. I'm more than puzzled how this could happen. --Lukas3226 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * An example sentence from the source: "Among all these papers, there is only a single paper that has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal". And from your version: "Of all these papers, only a single one was published in a peer-reviewed journal". See Close paraphrasing. You need to understand the concepts in a source and then write them in your own words. Copying the same sentences with the same ideas in the same ideas in the same order and then replacing some words by synonyms to hide the copying isn't good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also would like to add that the sentences in question don't seem to detract from the main point of the section, rather than add to it, and I was already considering removing them before I noticed that they were just directly copied. I suggest that any further edits along these lines be discussed on the talk page first. --JBL (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Referencing advice?
Hi David,

Is there a simple guide to the various options for referencing in Wikipedia that you could recommend? I'm (very slowly) working on writing an article and I want to use some sort of mix of in-line citations (In [cited work mentioning maybe author name and year], ...) and footnotes, and I understand the family well enough but have never understood how to make inline citations work.

Thanks, and hope you're doing well in the present times, JBL (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know of an overview of different citation styles — it sounds like the sort of thing that would be useful to have. My own editing tends to use a few different styles for different articles:
 * I think the most common is to have all references in footnotes (), using Citation Style 1 within the footnote (the style you get from cite web, cite journal, etc), with the footnotes collected into a "References" section at the end using reflist. You can name footnotes using  and re-use them if necessary with.
 * I prefer Citation Style 2 to Citation Style 1. The difference in coding is that you can use a single template, citation, instead of a different template for each type of citation. The difference in appearance is minor: CS2 separates parts of the citation by commas, whereas CS1 uses periods.
 * You can format references manually rather than in either CS1 or CS2 but I wouldn't recommend it; it's too easy to become inconsistent and doesn't work well with some of the options below. There are also other more idiosyncratic systems of citation templates with other styles.
 * A variation I have been using for most new short articles is to collect the details of all references into the references section with so that the main text of the article needs only the shorter  form, making it easier to see and edit both the article text and the references.
 * If you use named references you can also use r as a shorthand to refer to them. Its parameters should be a name of a reference or a sequence of multiple names, e.g. is equivalent to but shorter than.
 * Another style, occasionally used especially in some existing mathematics articles, and occasionally confusing to non-mathematics Wikipedia editors who are not used to encountering it, is to collect all of the citation templates into a bulleted list in the reference section (not inside ref or reflist), and then use Parenthetical referencing rather than footnotes to refer to them in the text of the article. harvtxt generates a reference like Author (2020) suitable for use as a noun in a sentence, and harv generates a reference like (Author 2020) suitable for use at the end of a sentence to mark that the source of the ideas is that publication. harvs is a more complicated option that can generate in-text and parenthetical references in this style, include links to articles on authors, etc. They will create a link on the inline reference that, when clicked, will scroll to and highlight the full reference. The full reference in the bulleted list needs to be in CS1 or CS2 format for this to work correctly.
 * It is also possible to put parenthetical references inside &lt;ref&gt; ... &lt;/ref&gt; footnotes. This may be used together with full references in other footnotes to indicate that you are re-using a source (for instance with different page numbers). It may also be used with a "Notes" section containing reflist where the footnotes go, and a separate "References" section containing the bulleted references that they point to; this can be useful when there are many references.
 * If you are going to put parenthetical references inside footnotes, the sfn and sfnp templates are a convenient shorthand. (They differ in the formatting of the reference within the footnote; choose one or the other consistently. I prefer sfnp.) These also automatically re-use the same footnote whenever you use them to refer to the same source, avoiding the need for explicit named footnotes.
 * One can use both harvtxt-style Author (2020) inline text links when you want the citation to be part of a sentence, saying who discovered something in the text of the author, and sfnp-style parenthetical citations in footnotes for other citations where the attribution is less critical to the main article text. I think this is the sort of mixed style you refer to in your question. In order to have somewhere for the inline text links to go when the same citation is not also used in a footnote, I think it would make sense to use this style together with separate notes and references sections (for the footnotes and a bulleted list of the full citations).
 * There is also ran/rma for making footnotes with arbitrary footnote-marker-text (not just numbers) that can scroll to and highlight any text elsewhere in the article (not just CS1/CS2-formatted references); I tend to use those for links to selected publications by the subject of a biography. But this is already getting complicated enough so maybe I should skip the details.
 * —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Nice reply. I’ve been spelunking the non-Mainspace for current and historical content on this topic. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, this is amazing! --JBL (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

creating a page for an AMS fellow?
Hi David. I have drafted an article about an American Mathematical Society fellow, class of 2019, Dan Margalit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Margalit_(mathematician)

(Let me note my COI, as Margalit was my PhD advisor.)

I only afterwards noticed that there is a page that you created to encourage the creation of articles about AMS fellows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Fellows_of_the_American_Mathematical_Society#2019_missing_fellows

Thanks for doing this! Two things:

1) I am not sure how to merge the draft article with what appears when the red link for Dan Margalit on the AMS fellows page is clicked. I'd appreciate any help with figuring that out.

2) From browsing a number of mathematician Wikipedia pages, and inferring from the "missing fellows" page, it seems as though being an AMS fellow is sufficient for meeting Wikipedia's notability criterion. Currently, there is a comment on the draft article, raising the question of whether the article meets the notability criterion. It may be that the draft article will meet the notability criterion roughly as it stands, but either way I'd certainly appreciate any guidance or input on ways the article can be improved to meet the criterion. (I have read Wikipedia's notability guidelines.)

Thanks! Justin.Lanier (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) The way to turn a draft into an article (for a topic that does not yet have an article) is to use the "move" tab at the top of the page, and then select "(Article)" in the menu where it says "New title:".
 * (2) Yes, being an AMS fellow should be sufficient for WP:PROF. The user who left the notability query,, can comment further, but it appears to be the case that the article was evaluated by our general notability standards (WP:GNG) instead of by our academic notability standards. This is a common mistake by draft and new-page reviewers. It would help if you formatted the book review references to make clear they are book reviews (the MAA one on "Primer" currently does not do this) and possibly found more in-depth reviews if they exist (e.g. on MathSciNet or zbMATH); if we had multiple books each having multiple published reviews, there would be a second case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. There is also a case for WP:PROF already through the heavy citation counts on Google scholar for the "Primer" book, but that is difficult to express directly in the article (I don't think it's a good idea to include citation counts there) and is weaker because his other publications are not as heavily cited. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker here. I'm commenting, since I took the liberty of doing some cleanup on the article, which I think will help with the notability case.  Regarding (1), what David Eppstein says is correct, but since you've started the article through "Articles for Creation", you should wait for that process to complete.  It's true that many AfC reviewers are unfamiliar with WP:NPROF, but it will eventually get to one who is.  And short-circuiting the process is likely to get the article proposed for deletion.  I'll also point out that there are some advantages to waiting: while the article is in Draft stage, you can edit it somewhat freely, but once it is accepted, you should use extreme restraint (given your COI). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re (1): Yes, AFC once started is a better choice. More importantly, one should avoid copying the article text from the draft and pasting it into the article; that creates additional problems with attribution that will need to be cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your explanation. I agree that it appears to meet the criteria for notability. I'm also aware of the subject-specific notability guidelines in addition to the general notability guidelines. I suppose the real concern I was raising was that the article possibly may not have had enough citations to support its notability, whether or not it actually qualified. Since a major contributor has a close connection to the subject, I think it is very important that the article have those strong citations. I have witnessed many drafts on non-notable subjects being created by people with close connections, so I'm always on the lookout for that, although I see that's not the case here. As I always say when editing: please correct me if I'm wrong. Other than that, I think this draft is off to a great start and I would be happy to help in any way I can! MrSwagger21 (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Geometric Exercises in Paper Folding
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Klaus Roth
The article Klaus Roth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Klaus Roth 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 Starsandwhales -- Starsandwhales (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

All my edits reverted! WHY?!
Pardon me, but why did you remove all my edits?! I didn't sleep to work on them! What did I do wrong?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.41.16 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought my edit summary was clear, but: Because articles should consist of encyclopedic content about their topics, not merely big regurgitated masses of undigested quotes. Because at some point putting in long quotes goes beyond fair use and supporting the content of an article into copyright violation territory, and your edits were well past that point. And because the whole point of your edits seemed to be to imply that this racist thing is not really so racist, a point of view pushed by and appealing to racists but otherwise unsupported by the consensus of current opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, and if the IP wishes to create a collection of quotes, I would invite them to do so at Wikiquote, which exists for exactly this purpose. To this end, I have started a Song of the South page at Wikiquote. BD2412  T 16:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's right to insert also the statements of the defenders who also explain the actual story behind the film. You could at least keep Floyd Norman's, Walt Disney's, Hattie McDaniel's and James Baskett's parts and quotes with the sources. You can't hide their statements, it's not fair towards them and towards the defenders and artists who also lived that period who always tried to explain the truth. Plus, Mary Blair worked on the animation. What was wrong even in my last edits? Unless you are one of those people with an agenda. In fact, I don't think you've even read what I inserted. I even think you could be a SJW (SJWs don't represent the general public), considering the phrase you said, "this racist thing is not really so racist", the actual meaning of the word, the facts and the witnesses, and the fact that you're ignoring and censoring Floyd Norman's, James Baskett's and Hattie McDaniel's statements, and I find it very hypocritical. Censorship and removal of official informations shouldn't be tolerated here, especially for an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.41.16 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This sounds like an issue to be discussed on the article talk page. BD2412  T 19:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Your Participation in an AFD
Dear David_Eppstein, Would like you to invite to an [| AFD Discussion]. There is targeted internet slandering going on against decorated individuals. The involved people are discrediting every piece of evidence and references from official Govt. circulars to reputed news articles and making fun of living people. Would appreciate if you could please take a look and give a neutral point of view in the discussion.

Regards, Anu231 (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

RE: Deepak Rao deletion discussion
Hi ,

Regarding the deletion articles in question, since I see Anu231 requested you to look at it, I would like to add some content for you to view as the user has been canvassing regarding this topic. The following is the discussion I had with Abecedare on the topic, as Abecedare was the first person that Anu231 contacted in their efforts. I do not ask you to agree with me, I just want to provide this information for you to view as Anu231 has already addressed you regarding this topic with their version of events.

Thank you.

below is the delete page for Deepak Rao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deepak_Rao

also of note is the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_commando_combat_system_(2nd_nomination) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prof.Dr.Deepak_Rao_%26_Dr._Seema_Rao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Advanced_Commando_Combat_System#Advanced_Commando_Combat_System,_Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao

and here is the previous discussion on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Deepak_Rao#Vendetta

In which Mr. Deepak Rao himself or his associates use 4 different accounts to try to protest the deletion. You will see something interesting if you go over those four profiles - namely, even the ones that have been around since 2013 have above 90% of their posts related to Mr. Deepak Rao. Additionally, if you read the articles and examine the sources, there is nothing left of substance once you remove non-credible sources or self-created sources.

You can read the below thread on Mr. Deepak Rao's claims, as well as reasons for how they can not be true. He alleges such claims as:


 * 1) being a doctor from Harvard with an M.D. and PhD
 * 2) Having a law degree from Yale
 * 3) Having another law degree from the UK
 * 4) Having a PhD in crisis prevention from Indiana
 * 5) Having a BJJ black belt (takes 10-12 years on average) from a nonexistent black belt at a nonexistent school in France, proven false with a quick fact check with the IBJJF senior referees as well as with the 2 associations he also claimed to have a black belt certificate from
 * 6) Having a suspicious black belt in JKD that was somehow issued after Richard Bustillo's death, by Richard Bustillo himself
 * 7) Having a 6th degree Judo black belt
 * 8) Being commended by the Queen of England
 * 9) Having every force from the FBI to the CIA to the Special Forces all use his training manuals (not true, I had never even heard of his system before, and I have trained many soldiers)
 * 10) being able to duck live bullets at will

And many other claims. I was not calling him a Charlatan as an insult, but as a statement of fact. He unquestionable is "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill". Dangerously so, in fact, as he is training people to have confidence in completely made up skills, and is actually performing medicine on people who believe him to have advanced medical credentials, when the Indian Medical Board website shows him to just have a 3 year medical degree. A far cry from a dual M.D. and PhD from Harvard.

I would like to request your unbaiased review of the matter, and would invite you to leave your thoughts and comments on the delete page. Given the facts of the matter, I would also like to request that you revert the description of the deletion reason.

Thank you for your attention and time!

V/R BasicsOnly (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am already aware of some of the related AFD discussions and will comment at the current AFD once I have looked into the subject's notability on my own. In the meantime, could you point me to where he has claimed to be for eg, "doctor from Harvard with an M.D. and PhD", or have a law degree from Yale or UK? Abecedare (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to hear that you will look into this. To be clear, I'm not asking you to do what I say or agree with me, I just think this topic deserves a close look because simply looking with a neutral predisposition clearly shows that he is making everything up anyways. I'm happy to provide sources, please look at the sources below for information on his claims. One challenge with finding said claims is that you will need to use something like wayback machine as he has gone into full damage control mode at this point and is closing everything up. For example, this is his current web page for his BJJ website (he has MANY websites for different claims and hats he adopts), whereas THIS has many of his martial arts claims (judo rank claim, BJJ claim, claims to teach "Kickboxing, Karate, Taekwondo, Hapkido, Judo, Boxing, Wrestling, Isreali Krav Maga, BJJ, Wing Chun, Shaolin Kung Fu, Ninja, Brazilian Jiu Jutsu / Jitsu, Jiu Jutsu, jeet Kune Do JKD, Filipino Philipino Martial arts, Kali, Arnis, Escrima, Silat, Capoeira, Self Defense Defence for Women & Ladies").


 * Likewise when we go to another of his websites here we don't see the same claims such as the law degree and harvard M.D that we see here where he alleges the following


 * This is just from two of his sites. On others such as Drdeepakrao.com, etc. you see other claims such as a Yale law degree. It's all entirely inconsistent. He doesn't even keep his claims in line with each other. you can read much more about that in this thread.
 * I invite you to look at them at your leisure. It's a very interesting read.
 * V/R
 * BasicsOnly (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Also an interesting short video to watch on the topic
 * V/R
 * BasicsOnly (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I guess Rao is following the wikipedia discussion and has now blocked the archiving of his website. In anycase, we can always assess the available sources we'll need to build any article upon. Will do so and comment at the AFD by tomorrow. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

BasicsOnly (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletion sorting
The List of fellows of IEEE Power Electronics Society isn't a biography of a single, specific academic or educator, but the AfD for it somewhat seems pertinent to that list. Should it be included there? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Plausibly. I wouldn't remove it if it were added. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Bootstrapping
Thank you for finding some references to link 'Chicken and Egg' with 'Bootstrapping compilers'. Murray Langton (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Thank you for the notification :)
Hello David Eppstein,

Thank you so much for telling me, I really didn't know about that. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're welcome, etc. (Context, for my own future reference.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Fibonacci
Dear David,

As I posted the entry I was hoping that somebody could fix my bad English. It is not my native language.

Vielen Dank, Andreas Veh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aveh8 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Edgardo M. Latrubesse
Would you take a look at the most recent IP edit to Edgardo M. Latrubesse? The edit is badly sourced, but a reliable source exists. I'm uncertain about what is WP:DUE in such a short article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't create an article just so such a story could be included, but I think now that he's been shown by the past AfD to be notable, it can stay in the article with the better sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was struggling with how to duly word it and fit it in.  I like how you did it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ellen Roche
Hi I wonder if you could have a look at the article on Ellen Roche and give me an opionion on whether she is notable or not. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a lot more sources. I think you ignore this. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  11:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The case for WP:PROF is borderline but maybe she passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very Eppstein happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:American computer scientists
Hello. I saw that you reverted my edit at Magdalena Bałazińska. I removed Category:American computer scientists because the article was already included in its subcategory Category:American women computer scientists. I thought articles under subcategories don't need to be added to the mother categories. Does it need to be included in both categories? Pardon my ignorance. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See Categorization. Certain categories are marked as "non-diffusing" with respect to certain of their parent categories, meaning that articles placed within them should not be removed from the parent category. Most commonly, this happens for subcategories based on gender or ethnicity — for instance, we don't want to ghettoize the American women computer scientists into a separate category where they won't be found by people looking for American computer scientists. So in the case you mention, yes, you were incorrect to remove the parent category. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't notice the template. Thanks for letting me know. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I let a response to your message here: User talk:Mgkrupa Best wishes. Mgkrupa (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Runforlimit505
I'd like to draw your attention to the contribution record of Runforlimit505, particularly the edits to Miroslava Duma. (We both interacted with the user at the AfD for Peter Lewis Allen.) I already reported at SPI and reverted once, but would like a more experienced set of eyes. I'm concerned that UPE accounts appear to recently be using AfD as a shortcut to autoconfirmation. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and now blocked as sock. Sorry to trouble you with it! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Long comments
Hello, mister Eppstein. Your comments on WT:Notability (academics) are rather long. This gives me the temptation to respond to everything, but if I did that, my reply would be even longer. If you made your future comments a bit more concise, I think that would lead to a better discussion. Now we're kind of talking past each other, it seems. PJvanMill (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You know how, when you're talking to an academic in their capacity as an academic, it can be considered insulting to use "mister"? Or maybe you don't. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @David Eppstein (better?) You're not here in your capacity as an academic. You're here as a Wikipedia editor. While you complain about me using the 'wrong' word to address you, you yourself did not even ping me, so the fact that I'm seeing your reply is due to me luckily thinking to take another look here, just in case. Truly no offense intended, by the way. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When I'm participating in a discussion about how academics produce measurable markers of success, I'm contributing as an academic, using my experience as an academic. This is different from adding content to articles, where everything must be sourced; when we discuss what should be considered notable, it would be circular reasoning to apply only internal-to-Wikipedia standards. We must use what we know from outside Wikipedia. When you're referring to me by my real name, rather than by my (very similar) editor name, you're referring to my real-world persona, not just my presence as a Wikipedia editor. When you disavow the usefulness of real-world expertise, as you just did in your reply here, it doesn't come across as an insult directed at me, but it does cause me to think that you have an anti-intellectual attitude that is not uncommon but perhaps somewhat incompatible with the desire to build an encyclopedia. And when you leave a message on my talk page I'd like to think that you're considerate enough to check back for replies without having to be called like a dog to its supper. In any case to avoid similar mistakes in future see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am here on your talk page discussing with you the fact that your comments are quite long and contain quite a number of points, so I certainly am talking to you as a fellow Wikipedia editor and not as an academic. Also in the policy discussion, you are participating as a Wikipedia editor, who just happens to be familiar with the academic world. I am perfectly willing not to address you as "mister" if you find that insulting, but that is a matter of politeness as you've asked, not a matter of correctness. Pinging people you're having a discussion with, on the other hand, is something I would consider common courtesy, as it is a common and expected behaviour on Wikipedia. I personally would certainly appreciate it, so I don't have to keep your talk page on my watchlist.
 * Now, on to the anti-intellectual business. Comparing me to Randy in Boise is a personal attack, and a petty one at that. As you've been here since 2006, you probably know that that is against policy quite rude. Leaving that aside, though, I do not see where I disavow the usefulness of real-world expertise in my reply just above. Nor am I opposed to input from academics on the notability guideline for academics. PJvanMill (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor request
Hi! This is an odd request, and please let me know if it breaks Wikipedia etiquette. Could you review a new page I created on the Great American Outdoors Act? I usually wouldn't mind at all waiting for a regular WP:NPP reviewer to get around to it, but this is a bill pending before the Senate that may pass as soon as today and generate substantial interest. I think it would be helpful if it was reviewed sooner rather than later so it can be indexed by Google and achieve some visibility. Thanks. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Eight circles theorem equivalent to Brianchon theorem
Dear Professor David Eppenstein!

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/363008/a-new-theorem-discovered-in-2013-equivalent-to-brianchon-theorem-the-old-theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.248.84.234 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Waterwizardm and NOTHERE". Thank you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Sandra M. Garraway
Hi I wonder if you could cast a bead on Sandra M. Garraway and tell if you think she is notable. She is a director of a research unit, which may be enough, but I can't make heads nor tails of it. There is a lot of tags on the page. scope_creep Talk  16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Assistant professors are usually not notable. Director of a research unit is far too low an administrative responsibility for WP:PROF (that's for people who are heads of entire universities, or of major academic societies). And neuroscience is a very high-citation field, meaning that she would need to have some very high-citation-count publications to have a good case for WP:PROF. Her Google Scholar citation counts of 154, 100, 83, 75, would be very good in some fields (pure mathematics, say) but I don't think they're good enough here. And the article is padded with evaluations of her research based on only her own research as sources, which is not acceptable in a biography of a living person; basic facts about her career (like that she is an assistant professor at Texas A&M) can be self-sourced, not not anything that includes opinions. This padding also has the problem that if there is anything in here that makes her notable through WP:GNG and in-depth third-party coverage about her (rather than merely citations to her research) it's lost and indescernible among all the other stuff. My tendency would be to say that she is not notable. It's not so bad that I would take it to a deletion discussion myself, but I would probably support deletion if someone else did. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Marty Goddard and Louis R. Vitullo
I read the recent NYTimes piece on Marty Goddard with interest, and was happy to see an article on her was recently created here. But I'm concerned with the SPA and IP editors that have been working towards turning that article, along with the article on Louis R. Vitullo into some kind of a hit piece on the latter. I'd like to get more eyes on both articles. Neither is living, so BLP processes don't apply. I'm considering posting to WP:RSN, as one issue is clarity on what we should use the NYTimes article (which seems to be thoughtfully researched, but seems to appear in the opinion section). Do you think that is a reasonable next step? (Alternative would be posting to related Wikiprojects, I guess.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
You and made revdels to Talk:Derek Chauvin, that hid edit(s) I made. I pinged you when I asked Deepfriedokra to explain those revdels at User talk:Deepfriedokra.

Deepfriedokra did reply to my questions - but their reply is completely worthless, as an educational reply, offering zero actual explanation as to how BLP justified the revdels.

I think they might be saying that they regarded everything connected to the Killing of George Floyd as extra-sensitive, so a mere gut-feeling could justify the revdel. I am going to return there, and ask for clarification, on that. But I would generally discourage any wikipedia contributor from making edits, or leaving comments, based solely on gut feelings. And, since administrators should be setting an example, I would discourage you, deepfriedokra, and all your colleagues, from using your administrator bits based solely on gut-feelings. I would discourage any administrator from using their administrator bits for administrator actions for which they could not offer a meaningful policy-based justification.

So, would you please consider going to User talk:Deepfriedokra and explaining your reasoning when you made the revdel? Please bear in mind I can't see the revdel'ed passage(s). If you consider the revdel'ed passage(s) so radioactive that even explaining your reasoning would compound the problem, then I request that explanation via email. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have already been answered by EEng on Deepfriedokra's talk page. Please do not keep spamming your attempts to justify your BLP violations and your attempts to find someone who won't tell you your BLP violations are wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * David, there is also Draft:Derek_Chauvin, which is heavily focused on the wife. Geo Swan noted on the talk that it "has a useful history", which I think means "the wife is named in the draft history".  --JBL (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, revdelled, although at least it only gave her married name. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot
care to weight in on belief that bot should not remove copyright violating S2 links after converting them to S2CID Parameters. in the block area. i would think you would prefer ids over urls to pdfs. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the correction and for your posterior edits on inscribed square problem 🙂 - Saung Tadashi (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem — it took me a while myself looking at the Quanta article to realize it was about a different problem. Their coverage can be annoyingly vague sometimes. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I also learned from your edits that I should use the same citation style already used in the page, right? I wonder, could the automatic citation tool from the visual editor automatically generate the right style? I always use it because of convenience. Saung Tadashi (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't use VE so I don't really know. If the article is in CS2 and VE produces a CS1 template, you would need to either change the template type from cite journal to citation, or add a cs2 parameter. What I don't know is how easy or possible those things are to do with the citation tool. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Tameka A. Clemons
Hi I wonder if its possible if you could take a look at this subject and tell me what you think.  scope_creep Talk  21:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With only one paper with any number of citations in Google scholar, not notable for academic accomplishments (WP:PROF), but the press coverage might give a pass of WP:GNG. Certainly any attempt at deletion would be met with that argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * She has been assistant professor for 17 as far as I can see, from her CV, which seems a long time, but did get a large grant recently which was in the news. scope_creep Talk  21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where I work being an assistant professor for even half that long would be impossible. Tenure or you're out. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A heads-up
I initiated a discussion at WPANI about your revdels of edits related to the killing of george floyd. Geo Swan (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)