User talk:David Eppstein/2021b

Noam Elkies
Hi David, concerning my edit:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noam_Elkies&oldid=1015190057

I saw Noam Elkin's name listed in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_mathematicians and clicked through to his page, only to find nothing was mentioned about him being Jewish or was he categorized as such. I found it odd that his being Jewish was relevant enough to be on the list, but not to be mentioned on his Wikipedia page. So, I added the information and used the citation that was given on the aforementioned list. It appeared to me as though the source was reliable, although I did not fully check it. Here is a primary source http://people.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/mp1.txt that supports my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.126.167 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPCAT, to categorize living people as having a specific religion, we need two things: (1) a personal attestation of faith from the subject, and (2) relevance of that faith to the subject's public life notability. I have already explained the problem with your earlier edit: the source merely lists Elkies as having composed musical works on Jewish themes, which is not the same thing as saying he is Jewish (and not a personal attestation of faith). The primary link you list above has similar problems. It talks about Jews, but never talks about Elkies himself being a Jew. Neither of these sources satisfies either of the two BLPCAT requirements. Probably whoever wrote List of Jewish mathematicians was being as sloppy as you and probably that list needs trimming. We need to be very careful here to avoid making leaps of reasoning and going beyond what the sources themselves say. Look for what reliable sources say about the subject and write that in their biographies here; do not write what you think might be true without sources and then go looking for sources that sort-of-match-but-not-really and pretending that they say things they don't say. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read the primary source I linked? "To give a more personal example, and then I'll be done: When I was a child in Israel, I knew little of Christians beyond some vague notions -- they believe in Yeshu; they have a Scripture called a New Covenant; there's a Pope. I studied music, so I also knew a bit about Gregorian chant and Masses and church organs. When I came back here, I experienced some of the wealth of great art and music that Christian belief has inspired. But I also learned that Christian belief includes some notions that are most shocking from a Jewish perspective. "Yeshu", Jesus, seems to be variously God, the Son of God(!), one-third of God(!?), or all three at once; he said that no one -- not just "no Christian", no one at all -- comes unto God except through Him [John 14:6]. There's more: this Jesus-God is claimed to be the same Lord Adonai of the Hebrew scriptures, scriptures whose prophecies are put forth as predictions of the life of Jesus. That's even harder for a Jew to stomach. So, education and diversity made me much better informed."

I am not 'pretending' the source is saying something it doesn't say; you are either acting in bad faith or being purposefully obtuse by suggesting so. In his own words, Elkies gives a "personal example" in which he describes growing up in Israel and learning about Christianity for the first time stating: "I also learned that Christian belief includes some notions that are most shocking from a Jewish perspective" and "That's even harder for a Jew to stomach.". In both cases, it is clear he is contrasting his new knowledge of Christianity with his being Jewish and views from it. Immediately after saying a specific Christian idea was hard for 'a Jew to stomach' he says it "made me much better informed"obviously referring to himself as the aforementioned Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.126.167 (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the things you quoted are statements of his own religion. What he says about himself is that he grew up in Israel. One can infer that when he talks about a "Jewish perspective", he is talking about his own perspective, but that is an inference, not something he says. This is not a context in which we are allowed to draw inferences. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox mountain pass
David, Thanks for the heads up on Infobox mountain pass. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Katherine J. Thompson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katherine J. Thompson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Katherine J. Thompson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rogermx (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Pythagorean triple
Hi David,

I want to discuss my edits on Pythagorean triple which you reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pythagorean_triple&oldid=prev&diff=1016618837

My edits were meant to make it easier to read, not harder to read, and also to clean up the formatting. Can you explain exactly why you think it makes it harder to read? In the mean time, I'm going to fix the (hopefully uncontroversial) explanatory and formatting issues.

Also, just as a general matter, I'm sure people would like it a lot more if you edited to improve instead of wholesale reverting a series of edits.

Cheers, --LK (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You added an extra formula in the middle of a simple English sentence, turning it into something only readable by people who like reading formulas. That is not an improvement in readability. It then added a distracting "note that" sentence allowing short-attention-span readers to forget what the main point was. The formula you added does not actually explain the sentence you added it to (because it describes Pythagorean triples in general, not the primitive ones), and is mathematically incoherent (because a, b, and c are unbound variables — although this criticism applies also to the previous version). And just as a general matter, I'm sure people would like it a lot more if you took constructive criticism to heart instead of making passive-aggressive and inaccurate generalizations about what other editors do. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add a definition section, including the definition of a primitive Pythagorean triple, since the example section introduces the concept without actually explaining it. I believe MOS states that important content should not be in the lead alone, instead the lead should summarize the content in the body. To be honest, I started editing the page because I found it hard to read. I'm trying to make it easier to read for non-mathematicians such as myself. Please feel free to edit. thnks --LK (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really appreciating your disparaging my motives there. And yes, I was reverted, so I started a RfC. I do not see how that is improper at all. And of course, the editor who reverted me jumped on the statement you made disparaging my motives. Would really appreciate it if you would amend your comment to be more in-line with "Assume good faith". LK (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did assume good faith. For instance, I ascribed no motive for the inaccuracy of your RFC. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Dual Graph
Thank you for your input, Professor Eppstein. I wasn't a fan of the forced-simplicity definition from Trudeau's introductory book either. In hindsight, given its highly-nonstandard nature, omitting this alternate definition is best for the article's continuity. I made a small edit, replacing "The dual graph has an edge whenever two faces of G are separated from each other by an edge" with "The dual graph has an edge for each pair of faces in G that are separated from each other by an edge." This edit makes it clear to the novice that the dual might contain parallel edges (as does the quality figure at the page's top right). What are your thoughts? -LG — Preceding unsigned comment added by LDGraham (talk • contribs) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete page Shirley Luckhart
David, This is Shirley Luckhart at Univ Idaho. I would like to request again (as I did on Twitter) to have this page on me that I did not contribute to and that is full of errors deleted as soon as possible. I do not want to contribute to or edit this page and I don't want this misinformation circulating on the internet about me at all. Shirley Luckhart PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1998Virginia (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Shirley Luckhart does look headed towards deletion. However, please see WP:CANVASS — once the deletion discussion has been started, it is frowned on to seek out other editors and encourage them to participate on one side of the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo Uploads
Hi User:David Eppstein. I would like to add a photo to the page of Sonja Petrović. Illinois Institute of Technology paid a photographer to take the photo and believes they own the copyright. I'm not so sure. Who needs to upload the photo?Mvitulli (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The owner of the copyright either needs to upload it or to provide WP:OTRS with permission to release it under an open license. By default that would be the photographer, but depending on the terms of the contract under which the photographer was hired it is possible that the photograph is a work for hire and that IIT owns it. It is almost certainly not Petrović herself, and photos from web sites can only be used if they are clearly and credibly marked with an appropriate open source license. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to remove semi-protected for Dr. A. A. Mamun's page
Hi, My name is Dr. Mahbubul Alam (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mahbubul-alam/). I am the nephew of Dr. A. A. Mamun. I would like to downgrade the semi-protected for Dr. A. A. Mamun's page. He gave me the permission to edit his wikipedia page. The current page is full of wrong information. As he is one of the top 2% scientist in the whole world, it is very important that the information on his page are correct and current. Therefore, timely edits are necessary for his page. Please see these links for his current affiliations and research credentials:

Personal information: https://www.juniv.edu/teachers/mamun_phys Research profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uOLQ_SkAAAAJ&hl=en

I would really appreciate if you could remove his page from semi-protected so that it can be edited by me or his students as needed. Please let me know if you need anything from my side.

Best, Mahbubul Alam, PhD
 * You have a conflict of interest. You should not be editing the article. The semi-protection is there specifically to prevent you or other associates of Mamun from editing the article. If you are trying to edit the article and are being blocked by the semi-protection, then it is working correctly and should not be lifted. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your response. I understand that I have a conflict of interest. But some of the information in the website are incorrect and some are missing. Is it possible to make someone who is not a relative of Dr. A. A. Mamun as the responsible person for the page? Also, please let me know how we can keep his wikipedia page updated and error free.

Thanks, Mahbubul Alam, PhD

— Preceding unsigned comment added by M Alam PhD (talk • contribs) 20:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kasia Rejzner
Hello, David Eppstein. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kasia Rejzner, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding your AsicMath undo of April 2
I was wondering if there was any way you should show me the revision you deleted from that article. This revision was made by a student in my class as part of an assignment, and without seeing the revision, it is impossible for me to assess the effort the student put into it.

Thanks you for your consideration. SurlyNotFurious
 * Ok, I've made it visible again at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AsciiMath&oldid=1015693368 —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Theresa M. Korn
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations (despite the DYK ending in not "an acceptable level of new review." Could you reconsider that debate?) Thanks for the contribution. Victuallers (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Reconsider what? That was the worst treatment any of my roughly 200 DYK nominations has ever received. I was very close to withdrawing my nomination and permanently withdrawing my participation in DYK. Thanks for rescuing it, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Theresa M. Korn
A civil edit summary from you would make a lovely change tbh... GiantSnowman 17:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have told you over and over and over not to reformat those dates. You keep doing it. At some point being deferent and timid loses its value. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except of course you are displaying OWNership and ignoring DATEVAR. GiantSnowman 17:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am the one ignoring DATEVAR? Really?? When I am using an established date style, clearly marking that style in a template at the top of the article, and you are the one gratuitously changing it? Take a look in a mirror. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The style is MDY. Your numerical format does not follow that, and so the dates used across the article are inconsistent. GiantSnowman 17:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The style is MDY cs1=ly, as clearly stated in the template. This is so well-established a style that it is listed in our MOS as acceptable, supported by the date style templates, and supported by the citation templates. The cs1=ly part means that publication dates of references (and in-article-text dates) should be spelled out in mdy format, but that access-dates and archive-dates should be numeric. That is exactly the style I have been using (for articles about Americans; for most other nationalities I use DMY cs1=ly). This may be an obscure detail of date format to most editors but it is clearly stated in the date format template documentation, you have been told over and over that this is an acceptable format, and it is the sort of thing you need to know if you are going to be running date-formatting scripts. So your continued claims of ignorance on this are heading towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you've mentioned it I have a vague memory of previous discussion - when, 18 months ago, if not longer? Apologies for forgetting. The script obviously needs to change so that pages tagged cs1=ly won't be changed from numerical format. I'll leave that with you. GiantSnowman 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You'll make me responsible for changing your script? That seems unlikely. Yes, it may have been 18 months. I also got into similar arguments with TheRamblingMan longer ago for behavior indistinguishable from yours. Anyway, I'm glad to learn that this discussion has been enlightening. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Err it's not my script. GiantSnowman 19:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, not mine, either, obvs. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Keller's conjecture
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That damn Levivich
He didn't ask but NPP would benefit if User:Levivich had autopatrol. EEng 07:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Polite/trapezoidal numbers
Hi! You reverted my change about the definition of a trapezoidal number. As it stands now, it disagrees with the definition of a trapezoidal number in perfect number, and it also disagrees with the source that I gave, that specifically defines non-trapezoidal numbers as those that "cannot be expressed as the sum of two or more consecutive whole numbers greater than one". And even if your (unsourced) definition was right, naming that section "trapezoidal numbers" would be pointless and misleading if it was just a synonym for "polite numbers", because the section specifically talks about those numbers in which the only polite representation is triangular. --Ngfsmg (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Formal Language revert
Hello. You recently reverted an edit on the 'History' section of Formal language, with the message:

"Web sites based on Joseph are not really good enough for this sort of claim. Cite real and peer-reviewed scholarship, please."

Could I ask exactly which claim you were referring to (it was a fairly long edit), and what 'Web sites based on Joseph' are?

Many thanks, Anshul Cole Jakaro (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that Pingala invented the mathematical study of formal languages, sourced to a web site that in turn appeared to be primarily based on Joseph's Crest of the Peacock. The study of grammar and syntax in natural language is of course very old and a significant thread of it goes back to ancient India. But the point of this article is to study syntax entirely divorced from natural language, as a mathematical object, a very different topic. It is plausible that this was done in ancient India, but the sourcing you used for these claims was very far from reliable on these matters. It needs proper scholarship, not web sites. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation
Why do you put misinformation in Derangement? 2A01:119F:31B:5D00:710C:F9E1:C187:D792 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected the article because of your continued disruptive editing there. Please stop your vandalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is in no way vandalism. I was reverting misinformation. 2A01:119F:31B:5D00:710C:F9E1:C187:D792 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Untrue. You were adding the obviously-false claim that computing the nearest integer to n!/e is NP-complete. It is obviously false both because that computation can easily be done in polynomial time (if n is in unary) or has an output of exponential size (if n is in binary), either landing well below or well above NP in complexity depending on how you define the problem, and because it's not even of the correct syntactic form to be NP-complete. It is so far from being valid that I can only conclude you are committing vandalism deliberately. You need to stop and find something more constructive to do with your time. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is definitely NP-complete. And it is obviously not 'equal' to the 'nearest' integer to 'n!÷e'. It doesn't even have the right form not to be NP-complete. You are the one who is doing vandalism and need to stop. I am constructive. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that it is entirely correct that hat-checks/derangement is NP-complete. It is your claims that are far from valid and you need to stop doing this vandalism. 79.185.231.25 (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The under penalty of perjury bit is a good gag, it almost makes your incompetence entertaining. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no incompetence. It's literally legally binding. This is serious, and if I were to be sued, would obviously lose. 79.185.231.25 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with JBL, but you should perhaps be warned that invoking legality is likely to get yourself blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you will be blocked for misinformation. 79.185.231.25 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It kind of reminds me of Sovereign_citizen_movement -- like, maybe if you randomly capitalize the right words then the 16th amendment was never ratified and also computing D_n is NP-complete? --JBL (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please disambiguate D and n. Your 'D_n' function is undefined. 2A01:119F:31B:5D00:710C:F9E1:C187:D792 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying reverting actual misinformation is 'lacking of basic arithmetic skills' is entirely incorrect. Revert your misinformation immediately. 38.111.215.254 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

By computing the exact value of !n, we can also solve other NP-complete problems such as traveling salesman, etc. . For instance, the brute force method to compute !n is to iterate through all n! permutations, etc. .38.111.215.254 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think that it is impossible to divide an integer by an irrational number, and then round the result back to an integer, something is lacking in your basic arithmetic skills. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because (!n)÷(n!) approaches 1÷e as n approaches ∞ does not mean !n is literally the rounded value of n!÷e, because that is not how any of it works. The value of !n has nothing to do with floor (n!÷e+0.5), as that's an unrelated formula that obviously does not count derangements as it can't generalize to the fractionals like gamma function of factorial can. Computing !n is NP-complete and has nothing to do with the false formula. 2A01:119F:317:EA00:1C0A:3E75:961F:B548 (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Computing !n is NP-complete – What in the world are you talking about? There's a simple closed-form formula for !n. P/NP has apparently dethroned circle-squaring as the most popular topic of 21st-century math crackpottery. EEng 05:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, but usually the cranks restrict their attention to proving either that P=NP or P≠NP (or sometimes better both at once). Proving that things are NP-complete, when they actually are, is usually not very deep, difficult, or exciting to other researchers. So in this case, the crank is doing themself a disservice by trying to claim that NP-completeness shows that the simple formula is wrong. The more ambitious form of crankery would be to accept that the formula is right, continue to maintain that computing it is NP-complete, and infer from the NP-completeness of an easy computation that P=NP. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great plan! I'll get right on it! EEng 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This formula has nothing to do with !n besides the ratio between them approaching 1. Saying !n "equals" floor (n!÷e+0.5) (it's actually NP-complete) is like saying the Chaitin's constant "equals" the output of a linear congruential generator (it's actually uncomputable) or saying the triangular number of n "equals" floor (n²÷2+0.5) (it's actually n²÷2+n÷2 without rounding). See how absurd you are being? 2A01:119F:317:EA00:1C0A:3E75:961F:B548 (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You've run circles around us logically so I think we'll just leave it at that. EEng 11:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

X
If you have a moment and are so inclined, X is back as Special:Contributions/36.235.152.111 and Special:Contributions/2402:7500:46B:8AE3:25D0:E1EA:BF4E:DE91. --JBL (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, both blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on confusion matrix orientation
Hi Dr Eppstein, I wonder if I could bother you for your opinion on Reference_desk/Mathematics. Thanks, cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 15:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Stokes
DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Dot planimeter
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Your reversion of my latest edit on Dual polyhedron article
Why you reverted my latest edit: But anyway, as usual: why removing the whole edit, instead of just removing the <ref ... ref>s in question?
 * "Cosmetic changes".
 * But there were many little changes...
 * "Gratuitous change of citation style".
 * I used the citation wizard's automatic generator!
 * "There is no evidence that the added source is in any way reliable".
 * The author of this website was a "professeur agrégé de mathématiques": he passed a national competitive exam, at a rather high level, which enables teaching to future math highschool teachers (& he did so); also, he won a math prize: the B.H. Neumann (an Australian math Professor of university) award (in 2001).

RavBol (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC) -
 * "I used the Wikipedia Visual Editor citation wizard!" is not an excuse for not following the existing citation style in the article. It is like getting caught drunk driving but then saying "but I was driving a Yaris!" Yes it will get you places but not very well. If a source is not reliable, the claims in that source should not have been added. And yes, you made many little pointless changes, which I didn't consider to be important collateral damage in reverting your badly sourced addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

- RavBol (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC) -
 * This website is hosted by the official "académie de Nouvelle-Calédonie", the local branch of the official "Éducation nationale" administration. Is a PhD required to be cited on Wikipedia?
 * Actually, i made no change of citation style: my 4 ref numbers are the same, because my 4 sources are the same, without varying other sources!
 * The article uses a citation style in which citations are formatted as Citation Style 2 (the citation series of templates), at the end of the article (inside the Bibliography section), called out in footnotes within the article using short footnotes. You used a citation style in which your citation was formatted as Citation Style 1 (the cite journal series of templates), directly within the footnote. In addition, your citation incorrectly gave the hostname from the url (maths.ac-noumea.nc) as the name of the website of the source (should have been "a walk through the polyhedra world"). So you changed the style in multiple ways. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

- RavBol (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC) -
 * About "maths.ac-noumea.nc" instead of "a walk through the polyhedra world": i didn't know that the citation wizard's automatic generator made such an error of citation parameter.
 * About Citation Style 1 instead of 2: it's a little breach of source code homogeneity, but it's invisible to readers.
 * You didn't answer the most important (real) question: is a PhD required to be cited on Wikipedia, please?
 * I didn't answer your "most important (real) question" because I thought it was rhetorical and coy. Of course not. BUT, the citation should be to a reliable publication, a journal or magazine or newspaper that exerts some editorial control rather than something self-published like a blog or web site or preprint. As for "invisible to readers": incorrect. That's why they're different styles, not merely different templates for producing the same style. And as for "the citation wizard's automatic generator made such an error": Yes. That's why I compared it to a bad car earlier: something that sort-of works, but not very well. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

- RavBol (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC) -
 * Summary: a Style 1 citation differs from a Style 2 citation, for readers too, because it does not appear in the Bibliography (sub)section; right?
 * "Is a PhD required to be cited on Wikipedia" was a real question, for several reasons:
 * It would have provided a possibility to cite some (serious) websites about polyhedra. Published editions of paper books cannot be fixed, whereas websites can be fixed.
 * MathWorld seems to be written by 1 high graduate mathematician, without external editorial control because it contains many "little" errors; but it can be cited on Wikipedia.
 * I know several math books, each written by 1 (different) high graduate mathematician, containing many "little" errors; but they are published, and thus can be cited on Wikipedia.
 * Yes, Citation Styles 1 and 2 are different for readers, as I have now repeated for you multiple times. The. Most. Obvious. Difference. Is. That. Citation Style 1. Has. Lots. Of. Periods. Breaking up. The citation. Into little pieces. Citation 2, on the other hand, uses commas to separate things. Yes, Wikipedia's citation standards are not perfect, but they are what they are, and they're much better than allowing random web pages to be used as sources. MathWorld falls on the allowable side of what can be cited, but it is not usually a good source — it has a lot of mistakes and idiosyncracies. So it is not a good example to use for arguing why you should be allowed to cite something else that is even more dubious. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

- My many little phrasing/specification changes are not useless to averagely gifted at mathematics readers... On the condition, which i must write in my Edit summary, that i remove my 4 citations, can i undo your reversion? Please, don't make me type everything else, again...

RavBol (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC) - Saying nothing is agreeing...

RavBol (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC) -
 * No. Saying nothing is making the statement that this discussion has become pointless, because you keep replying and arguing rather than accepting anything I have to say, so if you want to have the last word and re-revising your replies here you can go ahead and talk to yourself in public if that's what you think you want to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

- My edit in question comprised some NECESSARY changes: instead of:
 * "for many classes of polyhedra defined by their symmetries, the duals also belong to the same symmetry class",
 * "for many classes of polyhedra defined by their symmetries, the duals also belong to a symmetric class";


 * twice: "the face plane of the dual polyhedron $$P^\circ$$ with linear equation $$[...]x + [...]y + [...]z = [...]$$".

So: on the conditionS, which i must write in my Edit summary, that i remove my 4 citations AND my not sourced anymore little addition, can i undo your reversion? Please, don't make me type everything else, again...

RavBol (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC) -
 * i am really sorry to bother you for such an absurd issue, but i am stuck in it, & i need to know whether you find my latter request (just above) legitimate & fair, please? :-P
 * In advance, thank you very much for your answer! :-/
 * RavBol (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

-
 * Your incessant revisions of your old talk messages here, which every time give me big flashy notifications that there's a new talk page message for me, are bad enough. Please do not bring in other editors to a discussion that, as far as I am concerned, has long been closed and done. You can go somewhere else for your discussiions. Stop editing here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Josephine M. Mitchell
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Julia Schmale
Hi How goes it? What is you view on this lassie? It states in the article, that she is a full professor at the EFPL, but this reference, in an academic news release, No 2 in the list, states that when she was recruited she is a Tenure Track Assistant Professor of Extreme Environments. I think it is very possible a very early career move and she is currently not notable. It is far too early.  scope_creep Talk  12:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not call professional women "lassie". It can come across as demeaning and offensive. Anyway, her precise rank is less important than her accomplishments, which look likely to become significant enough for WP:PROF but maybe have not yet reached that point. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a traditional Scots word meaning women and is entirely appropriate.   scope_creep Talk  23:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a word for a little girl and it is offensive and misogynist to use it for grown women. Your usage of it calls your good faith on this issue into question. Stop or face likely escalating consequences. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "Scotty: Sexist or just Scottish?" <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In searching for a less-glib reply than "why not both?" I was saddened to discover that Scotty (disambiguation) did not link me to one of Lassie's fans. I fixed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Twin primes. An exact formula
Hi here. You reverted my last edit. But if you need a proof, it's here and is trivial. What kind of paper do you want? Whether one need to prove in a paper that "2×2=2+2"? --Tamtam90 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Other sections of the sequence page contain more details (in particular, Example and Formula). --Tamtam90 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Group formatting
Hi David, I wanted to thank you for your formatting work on the groups article! I take back my idea that having Latex all over the place makes the reading flow much worse -- in fact I quite like the look now. Keep it up! Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the Wikipedia page for Aidong Zhang.
This article is full of wrong information about me. If you don't allow me to edit it, I request you to remove it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidongzhang (talk • contribs) 17:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow anyone to edit articles about themselves. As I already noted, see WP:AUTOBIO. I have no power to make an exception in this for you even if I thought it was a good idea. There is a process for requesting the article's deletion, WP:BLPREQDEL, for people who are borderline for notability (Wikipedia's inclusion standards). My judgement is that according to Wikipedia's standards for academic notability, your case is not borderline. With a named professorship, founding editor-in-chief role, IEEE Fellow and ACM Fellow, and highly cited papers, you meet these standards at least five times over. In particular, it would create a significant gap in our coverage if the article were removed: you would be the only female ACM Fellow not to be covered. If there is incorrect information in the article, then (again as I have already told you) the article talk page, Talk:Aidong Zhang, is the place for requesting those corrections. You would need to be specific about what should be changed and why, and provide reliable sources for new information. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not allow anyone to edit articles about themselves" That is not what Wikipedia policy says. Please don't misrepresent it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTOBIO provides exceptions only for "unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy", none of which were in play in this instance. Please don't encourage the many people who want to self-promote here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment to which I replied was, as I quoted, "Wikipedia does not allow anyone to edit articles about themselves." That claim is demonstrably false.
 * WP:AUTOBIO says, quite unambiguously "In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself."
 * I was referring to policy; WP:AUTOBIO is a guideline.
 * Aidong Zhang is very clearly not a person "who wants to self-promote here".
 * There was false material about Aidong Zhang, unsubstantiated by any citation - and thus seriously violating our biography of living persons policy - in the article, which, after she identified it, was removed. WP:BLP is very much in play.
 * Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are seriously misrepresenting the situation and by doing so you are drama-mongering for no reason over an issue that has already been settled. All material in the article was adequately sourced. Although some of it may have been inaccurate, misinterpreted, or unduly repeating public information elsewhere that falls under BLPPRIVACY, there were no "gross violations" of the type described. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No I'm not; and no it wasn't (and your use of quote marks around "gross violations" is misleading). The claim "She is also founding editor-in-chief of IEEE/ACM Transactions" was cited (by you, I now see) to the subject's own CV. Not only is a CV not a reliable (far less "adequate") source for such claims; but the CV in question makes no such claim. It was a "clear-cut and serious" violation of our BLP policy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * CVs are completely adequate sources for non-controversial factual claims, like the claim that someone is editor-in-chief of a journal. We have a clause in BLP, WP:BLPSPS, that expressly allows such sources. It is merely the "founding" that was inaccurate. The "gross violations" that WP:AUTOBIO concerns itself with are not inaccuracies like that (or like the one I just pointed out on Talk:David Eppstein; maybe you can put some energy there instead of trying to pick fights for no apparent purpose other than to pick fights). "Gross violations" are things like unsourced claims of crimes, racist slurs, etc: stuff that could reasonably be suppressed from the edit record rather than merely corrected as inaccuracies are uncovered. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's troubling to see an admin being so wrong about our BLP policy, and about our treatment of newbie BLP subjects, and resorting to straw-man arguments; but even more troubling - and telling - to note the egregious personal attack in . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to avoid being called a drama-monger and a fight-picker, you could, you know, avoid doing those things rather than complaining when people call out your misbehavior. And I don't see why I should care that your bogus interpretation of policy causes you to be troubled: that's a good thing. Maybe if you're troubled, you could start reading the parts of policy I pointed to, and learn that your interpretation is bogus. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: page for Aidong Zhang
It does not matter, I request you to remove my page. I don't want you to randomly generate my page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidongzhang (talk • contribs) 20:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will initiate the process. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible typo to fix
Please verify the word 'wajor' in Articles for deletion/Aidong Zhang - shouldn't it read 'major'? --CiaPan (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, just an obvious typo. Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: Stop -
This is for David Eppstein. If you want me to stop editing my page, you got to remove the page because I don't want people to see the wrong information about me. It is irresponsible for Wekipedia to randomly generate people's articles without their approval. Aidong Zhang
 * Probably a good person to avoid as a dissertation advisor. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey! I always ask for approval from my students before putting their names as coauthors on my randomly generated articles. They have nothing to fear from me in that regard. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about you. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 05:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We should be nicer to Aidong Zhang. She discovered a Wikipedia page about her that, to her knowledge, was inaccurate, tried to fix the issue without already being familiar with Wikipedia's sometimes-bureaucratic procedures, and got buffeted around a bit as a result. I hope it's resolved now but she doesn't deserve to be teased her for her trouble. If you want to tease someone, try Sally, below. Please don't actually try this. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sorry. As for your strikeout: too late . <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 07:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sally C Morton Wiki
Hi, I work for Sally C Morton of ASU Knowledge Enterprise. We are editing her page and have not completed it. I received a message that you removed the content due to citations. We are not done editing the page and several hours of content where removed by you. How can we have that info placed back into Sally's Wiki?

We appreciate your help.

Mario Diaz ASU Knowledge Enterprise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.200.68 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you work for Morton you are REQUIRED by Wikipedia and Wikimedia policy to disclose that as part of your edits (see WP:PAID) and should not be editing her page (see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI). If there are inaccuracies in her article, use the article's talk page to request that another Wikipedia editor make the changes. However, the edits you were making were promotionally worded, in many cases stating opinions rather than facts about Morton, and did not cite their content to publications written and published by other people independently of Morton and her employers. Please see Wikipedia's requirements for biographies of living people, which require all content to be factual and cited to published sources. Requests for changes that do not comply with those requirements are unlikely to lead to changes to the article. Attempts to change the article yourself in the promotional way you have been doing are likely to lead to the article being tagged with a big warning visible to all readers that the article has been the subject of COI editing, and to all edits to Wikipedia from your range of IP addresses being blocked. To put it bluntly: Wikipedia is not a venue for paid publicity, is hostile to attempts at using it in this way, and will defend itself against such attempts. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I know you probably have a lot on your plate already as an admin, but you are the editor who I consider my go-to editor on Academic articles. Rather than me sending those types of articles to AfD, would you mind me pinging you to have a look prior to me doing that? I am loathe to increase your workload, but I'm not sure how much it would, since you tend to !vote on almost all the AfD's I submit regarding Academics. Thanks for your thoughts.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 01:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want my occasional opinion, sure, but I wouldn't guarantee that it's going to match the sense of any future discussion (obviously), and I'd be a bit uncomfortable if you called it out as an endorsement in a deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I would never use it as a rationale in a discussion. In fact, just the opposite, I would use it in my head as a reason NOT to send it to AfD. And I'm not talking about every scholar article I come across.  Many are sure fire keeps (named chairs, high citation counts, etc.).  It's the others.  There have been several times I've sent articles to AfD, and your input has made me see the subject in a different light.  A few of those times I was able to withdraw the nomination, as there had been no other input.  And I'm not saying that I won't disagree with you from time to time, it's just that you have a lot more expertise in this area than I do, and I respect your opinion in these matters.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheila Oates Williams
I went to Tintagel CP and Sir James Smith's and had never heard of her before your article, so thank you for reducing my ignorance. I thought you might like to know that Google is already serving up your article as a "featured snippet" for searches for the Oates–Powell theorem. All the best, DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Gertrude Michelson
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability advice
Hi David, hope all is well. I’m wondering if you could advise on the notability of Laurence M. Hauptman under nprof or nauthor? I’ve seen him cited as a prominent Iroquois scholar but would appreciate your thoughts. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * He's in a book field rather than a journal field, so citation counts are less relevant. JSTOR advanced search for reviews matching "Laurence M. Hauptman" returns 223 hits, a huge number even for a prominent academic book author. Some of those are reviews he wrote, some are reviews that just cite him in passing, and some are of edited volumes, but even just looking at the first page (roughly 10% of the hits) I see plenty of reviews of multiple authored works. Google Scholar (search for intitle:Hauptman) finds even more. A very easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. And as Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at SUNY New Paltz, he also passes WP:PROF. This is at the level of "why don't we have an article about him already", rather than worrying about whether an article would be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've written a brief article on him. What do you think? Dunno the best way to include reviews establishing notability... Eddie891 Talk Work 22:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I usually make a concise listing of them as references on each book publication; as most recently for instance in Lawrence Stepelevich. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sindee Simon
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Celebrating ten years as a warder at the Home for Unruly Children. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 07:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, a lot of the rest of the world looks like that too these days. Has it really been ten years? Wow, time flies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Academic notability request for advice
Hi, David Eppstein. Thank you for your response on Articles for deletion/Marc Tucker. I've always been a little intimidated by the author and academic notability standards because it is hard to find specifics on what they mean outside of individual AfD discussions, but it seems like generally the bar is not meant to be that high, and especially not when compared to general notability. If you have any time to spare, I was wondering what you felt a citation count would be an approximate measure for other fields, and if you know of any helpful discussions (or anything written by you) to help understand more about academic notability? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to answer in that form. In general I think the bar should be roughly at the level of a newly-promoted full professor at a good research university. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Well
Well. Goodbye. --Turbojet (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Think about mobile and be happy that someone will at least read the infobox. Many will only need the data there, few will fall into ecstasy (like me) in front of mathematical texts. --Turbojet (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are even worse on mobile browser views at presenting useless uninterpretable stripped-of-context factoids and obscuring the better summary in the lead paragraph, because of the reduced screen real estate that they hog. You don't even see the text until you scroll down. The only saving grace is that the Wikimedia developers apparently agree with how useless they are and hide them by default in the app view. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You will see that it will be solved on mobile. This is the technology of the immediate future (I don't anticipate holographic images of Wikipedia yet). But be that as you say, I don't put any other infoboxes. Cheers, --Turbojet (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Manifold
Greetings, David Eppstein. I would like to pose a question on the Manifold article. It has come to my attention that you gave said article the C-Class quality rating it now holds (with which I agree). Could you give some guidance on how to improve that specific article? And, in a more subjective light, do you think it can reattain FA status with today's standards? Cheers, and thanks for your hard work! Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of material there (maybe too much, and more should be summarized and left to other articles). I don't have a strong feeling for whether the overall outline makes sense as a unified whole, or whether it tries to take the disjoint union of reasonable outlines and ends up being redundant. But the main thing holding it down to C-class instead of at least B-class is its sourcing. Every paragraph, and preferably every individual claim, should refer to a published source for the same material, and in its current state too much of the article is entirely unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_a_point (Laguerre's Theorem)
Hi, today I read the Laguerre's Theorem section of Power of a Point and went down the rabbit hole of trying to learn more about it. Either I'm missing something, or the reference given does not give much enlightenment.

I'm writing to you because according to the edit log you may have been the most recent person working on that section.

While googling I found somebody had asked for more references on MSE, and after a few hours of reading and googling I came up with somehopefully useful online references.

https://math.stackexchange.com/a/4172288/1257

Feel free to use any of these references, including the first one to the actual page of the original paper. I'd do it myself but too many cooks etc.

Thanks,

--Brainjam (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm much more familiar with power with respect to circles than with this generalization, but I'll try to find some time to look at this. It may take a few days for me to get to it. I don't mind if you want to try taking a cut at it instead of waiting for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of X + Y sorting
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article X + Y sorting 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 N8wilson -- N8wilson (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of X + Y sorting
The article X + Y sorting you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:X + Y sorting for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of N8wilson -- N8wilson (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't let that icon throw you off. This is a great article for the right reader David. Thank you so much for adding so much good content to it. I think highly technical topics like the analysis of algorithms are probably always going to be a team effort on WP because of the challenge of writing "from" one audience to another very different one. It may take multiple revisions by a variety of editors with different backgrounds to reach the type of prose that addresses the broadest possible reader base. WP relies on authors like you however to be the first link in that chain and bring in great content from reliable sources like you've done here. Please keep it up! I enjoyed getting familiar with this topic during the GA review.  Best.  --N8 15:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Euclid-Euler
Regarding this, I agree. I was wondering if it was useful information for the lead, not whether it is a necessarily true consequence. Being left unstated is fine. Best of luck, Urve  01:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying this, by the way, even though I preferred the other wording. My general preference is to keep statements in the lead of articles like this one as simple as possible, in an attempt to make them more accessible, and I think the additional complication goes against that principle. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

NPROF question
Howdy. Drawing on your knowledge of NPROF, would you say someone who has received a Guggenheim fellowship meets NPROF #2 (received a prestigious award)? Thsnaks for any insight. --- Possibly &#9742; 01:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not, going by the sense of the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 13. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * Mmm, baklava. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I'm sure there are many better edit summaries to be found out there, but thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wholesale rewrites requests
Hi David, I'm following up on your comment at. A non-trivial number of edit requests at CAT:EDITREQ consist in what you would call "wholesale rewrites" of certain articles. What is your opinion about what should be done with these requests? My initial impression was that we (or, rather, someone) should put in the amount of time necessary to analyze what could be kept and what should be discarded. But reading your comment I understand that you would have a different approach? Thank you. JBchrch  talk  16:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I am going to have to go through and say "yes, this one is appropriately neutral and can change" but "no, this one is a medical claim and the sources you are supplying are completely inadequate to support it" or "no, you are writing far too promotionally" to each piece, then I would prefer that the pieces come already separate. We should be providing subjects the opportunity to correct and update their biographies, but not to rewrite them as they would please. Suggested replacements for entire articles are too much "rewrite as they would please" for my taste. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense, and I agree with you, especially regarding Suggested replacements for entire articles are too much "rewrite as they would please" for my taste. As a matter of "legislation", however, I don't think that this is reflected in the applicable guideline, which is WP:COIRESPONSE (and its related information page WP:EDITREQ). Do you think that it would be useful to build consensus about an amendment to these guidelines by starting a discussion at WP:VPP? JBchrch   talk  17:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)