User talk:David Eppstein/2022a

Your GA nomination of Free abelian group
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Free abelian group 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 Urve -- Urve (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free abelian group
The article Free abelian group you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Free abelian group for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Free abelian group
The article Free abelian group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Free abelian group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Factorial
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Factorial 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 Vogon101 -- Vogon101 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Factorial
The article Factorial you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Factorial 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 Vogon101 -- Vogon101 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why this is here - as I certainly passed it, please let me know if there is something I need to fix Vogon101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The bot glitches sometimes. The talk page where the passed nomination goes looks ok to me. I wouldn't worry about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Regular number
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three-gap theorem
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Three-gap theorem 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 Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessen's icosahedron
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jessen's icosahedron 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Straus conjecture
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erdős–Straus conjecture 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 HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erd?s–Straus conjecture
The article Erd?s–Straus conjecture you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Erd?s–Straus conjecture 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 HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This time the bot glitch was predictable; it always does this for articles with non-ASCII titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Query
Hello, David,

I saw you closed Articles for deletion/Dilar Dirik and I noticed that Draft:Dilar Dirik also exists. The deleted page actually directs the reader to the draft page. Do you think this draft falls within the scope of the AFD? Thanks for considering this query. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think that would be a stretch. The main reason for deletion was speedy G7 and the draft creator, User:Czar, appears unrelated to anyone who edited the article. Maybe Czar would be willing to tag their draft G7 as well, based on the arguments in the AFD? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * G7'd—didn't know about the discussion so appreciate the heads up czar  07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Kara Cooney
Excuse me, David: I cited the Henry Ford Museum and History.com for the Rosa Parks entry — I was Very Careful in my citations; so please restore my edits. Discpad (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You sourced a BLP to a far-right hit piece. That is unacceptable and you should know better than to ever do such a thing, let alone ask to be allowed to continue doing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * David, if you meant to revert this edit of mine, I'd like to understand why. I suspect it got caught up in your vigilance keeping that WP:COATRACK criticism out. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That edit looks unproblematic to me. I agree that it got caught up in the other edits. I have no objection to your reinstating it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessen's icosahedron
The article Jessen's icosahedron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jessen's icosahedron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antiparallelogram
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antiparallelogram 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 Elli -- Elli (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Straus conjecture
The article Erdős–Straus conjecture you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Erdős–Straus conjecture for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Square pyramidal number
valereee (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

block of 2402:7500:917:30C4:54AA:108F:3ECB:103F
Hi, thanks for blocking the LTA at the above IP. Could you also block the /64 range of that at Special:Contributions/2402:7500:917:30C4:0:0:0:0/64? See WP:/64 - ISPs treat IPv6 /64 ranges like single IPv4 addresses. For example earlier today the LTA was using 2402:7500:917:30C4:F49C:9CA3:EEE6:A404, another IP in the range, so blocking the /64 would be better for preventing block evasion. Thanks, ev iolite   (talk)  19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. I wasn't aware of WP:/64 before but it makes a clear enough case for how to block IP6's as a general rule. That range turned up another edit to domino tiling which also looks like X. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine Cavagnaro
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three-gap theorem
The article Three-gap theorem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Three-gap theorem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

TFA nomination for Group (mathematics)
I have nominated Group (mathematics) to run as today's featured article for an unspecified date. I included you as a main editor for the article because of your participation in the article's FAR in April/May 2021. Editors may join the discussion for this nomination at Today's featured article/requests/Group (mathematics). Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Alexander–Spanier cohomology
Could you take a look at Talk:Alexander–Spanier cohomology? I think I found an error in the formula defining the differential in the article, but I'm not completely sure of my correction, as shown in talk.--agr (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really a subject I'm familiar enough with to say anything with confidence of being correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Understand.Thanks anyway.--agr (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Koenigs-theorem-proof.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Koenigs-theorem-proof.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗ plicit  03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Antiparallelogram
The article Antiparallelogram you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antiparallelogram for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elli -- Elli (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Factorial
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Three-gap theorem
The article Three-gap theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Three-gap theorem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Jessen's icosahedron
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

CN template in BLP Wiesława Nizioł
Re "It does indeed need a source, but it was very easy to find. Did you even try?" here: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material"

- WP:BLP

--CiaPan (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words you're happy to make work for other editors without lifting a finger to do any yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. I did not add unreferenced info. --CiaPan (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Antiparallelogram
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits in Paulette Libermann
Hi David Eppstein, I believe there have been some misunderstandings regarding my last edits, so I thought it was better to discuss them here. I apologise in advance if I misinterpreted your edit summaries.

Regarding the citations: I was not aware of this difference between citations styles 1 and 2, thanks for letting me know. I have always created them automatically (e.g. using DOI), while, as far as I understood, Citation Style 2 needs a manual input of the various data, so it looks to me a much less convenient method. Is there maybe some argument why citation style 2 should be preferred in general (e.g. it makes easier/better something else I am not seeing)? Anyways, I understand that it was already used before my edits and, according to WP:CITEVAR, it should be kept that way, so I'll try to fix it.

Regarding using Libermann's papers as references about Libermann: in your previous edit you transformed the links to those papers into a separate list of "selected publications". In my last edit I didn't touch those references at all, nor I added new papers, so I don't understand why you claim I kept making the same mistake. Or am I missing something?

Last question: in the previous edit I used Zentralblatt MATH as source (to prove that Libermann had a certain amount of papers), which you dismissed as "search engine results are unacceptable as sources". I thought that zbMATH was a reliable source, since it doesn't simply collect random papers/books but review them as well (unlike for instance Google Scholar, which is indeed much less reliable on this matter). Then would also MathSciNet (which I had not used since it's subscription only, and I thought it would be better to use an open access resource) not be allowed as well?

Thanks! Francesco Cattafi (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument is WP:CITEVAR. You should not change citation styles. It is usually a simple matter of using the citation template instead of the cite templates. It is easier, because you do not need to choose which of the many cite templates to use. If your automatic software is incapable of doing that, fix it. As for zbMATH: individual signed reviews on zbMATH are reliable sources for what that paper is about. A search result for all papers by someone is not. Search engine results are always disallowed as links. A carefully curated author profile (like the ones on Google Scholar) can be included in the external links but not as a reference. In general, most of our academic biographies avoid saying "they have published 371 papers". It is not particularly useful information to readers. Why include it? I can't even accurately count my own papers. Instead, a carefully selected small set of the most influential papers and books seems a better choice to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Unsolved problems and solved problems in mathematics
Hi, @David Eppstein, I would like to ask about the unsolved and solved problems in mathematics. My first question is why the solved problems have been written in unsolved problems of mathematics? Is it better to make a new page about the solved problems in mathematics ? Is it better to write about who's solved the problems and what are the solutions (if the idea, that is, to make a new page about solved problems in mathematics, is acceptable)? Regards Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibonacci nim
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fibonacci nim 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 Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Infinity symbol
The article Infinity symbol you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Infinity symbol for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Theleekycauldron -- Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Charles G. Häberl
Hi there. Hate to bug you, but could you take a look at this article and give me your opinion? Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of an expert on religious studies scholars, and tend to stay out of their deletion discussions, because the non-academic side of their notability is somewhat opaque to me. But from the academic side, this one looks ok. Citation counts are low but I think that's to be expected for the field. I would start by looking for published reviews of his books. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr has three on JSTOR, , . I also found one review for The Mandaean book of John . That's enough to make at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR. President of the International Linguistic Association might also be WP:PROF. So I don't see a lot of reason for questioning this article's legitimacy, and a reasonable likelihood that it would be kept in an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Schenkerian Studies
Hi. Thanks for all your constructive engagement on the Timothy L. Jackson article. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to have a serious conversation, and I acknowledge that I don't always succeed at being as dispassionate as one would hope.

In that vein... The anonymous IP contributor to that discussion basically bounces back and forth between that page, Philip Ewell's page, and the Journal of Schenkerian Studies page pushing their point of view. (Also the page for Heinrich Schenker himself, but I ain't going NEAR that one.) As I have now reached the point where any more edits on my part on those pages could reasonably be considered edit warring, I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look at the recent edits to the JSS page in particular? I'm utterly baffled by the distinction being drawn between "biological racism" and "racism," and I don't know how to respond.

Thanks for your time. PianoDan (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's simple. Biological racism is based on race; cultural racism is based on the differences between cultures. Racism against Blacks in America is biological. Germans' hatred of the French and English after WWI is cultural. Schenker's racism was cultural because he criticized other peoples, especially the French and the English, not other races.


 * Ewell tried to show that Schenker was a cultural racist by distorting Schenker's quotes. Wiener in the article I added last night to the JSS entry said this. So did Jackson in the Quillette article that PianoDan keeps deleting. Most of the writers in JSS are acknowledging Schenker's cultural racism. Only the Beaudin article is clearly using the term in the biological sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that race actually exists as a biological rather than social construct, you are mistaken and probably mistaken in a racist way. There is no biological basis to racism. It is all purely cultural. And by trying to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable racism, you are coming across as an apologist for racism and as someone not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. It is all unacceptable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not giving my opinion. This is an existing argument. I am only summarizing it.

The point is that Schenker was talking about national peoples--English and French--not Blacks. Wikipedia is not a place to accuse others as racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that Schenker was not also talking about Black people (and dude, "Blacks" is not the preferred nomenclature) than you have either not been paying attention or are willfully blind. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"No Preferred Racial Term Among Most Black, Hispanic Adults" Gallop Poll. https://news.gallup.com/poll/353000/no-preferred-racial-term-among-black-hispanic-adults.aspx

You can read Schenker's mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.26.105 (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do see what you mean. As long as they confine this bullshit to talk pages it probably does not rise to the level of blocking them. Probably nonresponse is the best option. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Le sigh. It's frustrating, but you're right.  Thanks for the feedback. PianoDan (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kepler triangle
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kepler triangle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NSNW -- NSNW (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibonacci nim
The article Fibonacci nim you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fibonacci nim for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, as always, for your help with drafts.  DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

My edits have been undone by SineBot
Could you revert the talk page on the Majority problem to the state it was in before Sinebot ruined it? BragmArcus (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Stop removing my comments. That is disallowed by Wikipedia talk page policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops!!! I didn't know that!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BragmArcus (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Response to Talk Page Response for Catherine L. Ross
Hi again! So sorry, I'm really new to Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I am fumbling around. I am an intern for a center affiliated with her, I manage a lot of her online websites and it came to the center's attention her Wikipedia had a strange undisclosed paid editing tag. Again, I'm very new to Wikipedia pages and the talk pages I was in prior to this one, told me to come to this page and ask for a review, as I wouldn't be able to review/ edit it myself due to my affiliation, and the Women in Red talk page was super passionate about notable women bios on the website. I looked through her page myself and everything on it seemed accurate, to my knowledge, with sourcing for most of the biography. So I would really appreciate if you could review it or refer me to someone who could review it, and if it still doesn't comply I would be more than willing to ask for sources from around the center if that's what's missing. Thanks again for your response and apologies again for any fumbling! ReginaDevi (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kepler triangle
The article Kepler triangle you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kepler triangle for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NSNW -- NSNW (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kepler triangle
The article Kepler triangle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kepler triangle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of NSNW -- NSNW (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Addition
Hope if you can check also this old GA. 59.152.141.198 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of new citation-needed tags, I see. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Calculus references
I've been brushing the cobwebs out of the calculus article, since it is highly visible and prone to cruft accumulation. As you might be the project's expert on books about mathematics and its history, I was wondering if you had any suggestions for the references and the (perhaps over-exhaustive) "further reading" section. It would be nice to direct readers to books for which we have articles, where possible. I found a few, e.g., The History of Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction, but it's quite possible that I missed some opportunities.

I don't have the time or the focus to shepherd the article through a formal process like WP:GAN, but I figure improvements here and there will be beneficial anyway. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have much opinion on this, other than having edited biographical articles on a couple members of the Harvard Calculus Reform Project (Andrew M. Gleason and Deborah Hughes Hallett). I don't actually know much about calculus pedagogy since I'm in a CS department and don't have to deal with it, and I've been tending to avoid routine textbooks in my editing on mathematics book related topics, but maybe what you want here actually is the routine textbooks. I suspect that if it's difficult to find something in those texts, that may be a sign that it's not central enough to be worth mentioning in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Derangements
Hi, you reverted my edit of Derangement, commenting “other than using more technical jargon like codomain, how does this differ from the material already in this section?”. It differs in that it's clearer and more concise—at the very least, the hat-check explanation would be simplified if the hat labelled $$1$$ is relabelled to $$i$$ after the $$1$$st person has taken the $$i$$th hat. lammbdatalk 00:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More concise, in this context, usually means more WP:TECHNICAL. I think this topic should be written in a way that can be understood by people not familiar with jargon like "codomain". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'll go ahead with the hat relabelling explanation—although I don't necessarily agree that adding an alternative explanation would make the article more difficult to understand, since it's not supplanting the original. lammbdatalk 00:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes it more difficult in two ways. (1) People unfamiliar with the terminology will hit a wall of terminology that they don't understand, stop reading, and leave the article thinking that they understood none of it and that Wikipedia is useless for trying to understand mathematics. This happens far too frequently already for Wikipedia articles, because of well-meaning edits like yours. (2) People familiar with the terminology will be confused at why the two new paragraphs look the same as the first two paragraphs of the section, almost as if someone editing the article made a copy-and-paste error, and be distracted from understanding the actual text. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. lammbdatalk 00:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Component (graph theory)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Component (graph theory) 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 Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kepler triangle
Hello! Your submission of Kepler triangle 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Lobachevsky_(song)
Would welcome your thoughts on following the revert - thanks! ciphergoth (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Component (graph theory)
The article Component (graph theory) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Component (graph theory) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Doubling the cube
My apologies re edits to Doubling the cube. We were stepping over each other's toes. While I was composing my fix, you fixed the article. Seeing that, I backed it up, and my second (last) edit left the article as you had edited it, referring to your fix as the "probably superior" one (as I am not so familiar with the math markup). signed, Willondon (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that is an incorrect description of what happened. Your second edit returned the article to its broken state prior to my fix. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Infinity symbol
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories
I'm grouping the superclass categories for templates. Please discuss prior to mass reverting. WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  07:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making a royal disaster of our categories. A graph is a mathematical structure; a data structure is a computational structure; graphs should not be categorized as data structures. They are different things. And you are violating our categorization requirements by putting articles in parent categories when they are already in child categories. I suggest YOU stop and mass-revert your own edits before this escalates to the drama-boards. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Primary data structures are the ones listed under list of data structures, and I've only added categories to those on the page. Your reverts on the articles listed under the WP:SAL articles don't make sense. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  07:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And the categories added to the articles under the list article do not violate any policies. The categories on DS-related articles were incomplete or immature earlier. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  07:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A huge fraction of your edits violate WP:CATSPECIFIC. "If a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." And many others are placing articles into categories for which they are totally inappropriate (mathematical objects like graphs into categories for computer science concepts like data structures). And you are making those edits so quickly that it appears you are using automated tools to do so, making your bad edits more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:Data structures should contain Category:Data_structures or the subcategory. But most of the articles do not follow this pattern. And, the category was added to the articles that fall under Template:Data structures but doesn't have any categories. (I'm not objecting to your "graph theory" or "graph structure" related reverts here, to make myself clear.) WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  08:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop making excuses for your miscategorization and start paying attention to WP:CATSPECIFIC. Also, stop using some particular list article that some editor or editors threw together as an excuse for spreading its mistakes across the rest of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I misunderstood the concept of "subcategories" and "supercategories" in the context of Wikipedia, and how they're inter wired. I will revert myself where an article might belong to a subcategory (categories like a Category:Linked lists,  Category:Trees (data structures),  Category:Hashing, etc.) and arrange them in accordance with super-categories' page.  WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  08:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, things that are already in this subcategories shouldn't have Category:Data structures category, right? (since we categorized to the most specific one already). But what about this category like Category:Hashing? Hash tables is best categorized to "data structures" category, but since "hashing" isn't a subcategory within "data structures" (from the link I shared prior), we can categorize them into both of those categories, right? (I believe the "super" and "sub" categories are chosen at the time of the creation of a category?). WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because "hashing" is not (last I looked) a subcategory of data structures, it's not affected by the categorization rules and has to be decided based on the actual content of the articles. But my opinion on the matter is that if it's related to hashing and is a data structure, it belongs in the child category, Category:Hash based data structures‎. So if it was placed in the parent category Category:Hashing, it was probably placed there because it is not a hash based data structure, but is something else related to hashing (like hash functions, which are not data structures). Such an article probably does not belong in the data structures category tree. Categories are for defining characteristics of topics; they are not for listing other topics to which they are vaguely related. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes sense. Apologies for my misunderstanding of the inter-wiring of categories and subcategories. Thanks. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  09:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Self-reverted the categorizations. WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  09:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Dot planimeter
Just saw your great article about the dot planimeter! Thanks for writing it- Staecker (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! It was inspired by your video, so thanks for making that and all the other mechanical computer reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harmonic series (mathematics)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Harmonic series (mathematics) 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 XOR'easter -- XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this on! —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harmonic series (mathematics)
The article Harmonic series (mathematics) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Harmonic series (mathematics) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XOR'easter -- XOR'easter (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Kepler triangle
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, David, for this interesting, well-presented article.--Ipigott (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Harmonic series (mathematics)
The article Harmonic series (mathematics) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Harmonic series (mathematics) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of XOR'easter -- XOR'easter (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Numbers people collide with roads people
There's a discussion that could use you. Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Fibonacci nim
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Möbius strip
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Möbius strip 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 Mover of molehills -- Mover of molehills (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That was fast. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Möbius strip
The article Möbius strip you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Möbius strip 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 Mover of molehills -- Mover of molehills (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

George Olshevsky's polyhedron names
If you have a second I'd appreciate your opinion at. Apocheir (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)