User talk:David Eppstein/2023a

Happy New Year, David Eppstein!


Happy New Year! David Eppstein, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Emma Lehmer
You mentioned (in 2012) a reference to Emma Lehmer discovering the then-largest-known set of twin primes. Do you have a copy of that reference (J. Recreational Math., 1970)? It doesn't appear to be online. Jonboy (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Reversion
Hello, You reverted someone's addition to Ron Schnell recently. I agree with you about the published article. I would like you to reconsider the reversion relating to the Johnny Depp trial. The testimony was watched by 500 million people. Also, you mention that it should not be mentioned twice (with which I also agree), but you deleted both the first and second time it was mentioned. Please consider putting one of them back. Ron Schnell 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the most we can say about someone is that they testified as a witness in a lawsuit in which they were not a party, then they're not notable at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to review DYK hook
Hi, would you be able to re-review this DYK hook situation (if no one else gets to it first)? Expert opinion needed. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Convex curve
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Convex curve 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Photograph of BLP removed
I'm struggling to understand this. You find the image unflattering, I guess, but that doesn't qualify as "false or disparaging" under BLP policy. Or do you think it does? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * She looks bug-eyed and disgusted to me, enough that I think it is disparaging, yes. I think there must be a better frame in the same video. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Convex curve
The article Convex curve you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Convex curve for comments about the article, and Talk:Convex curve/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Renata Mansini
Hi David, I see you undid my edit on Renata Mansini's page, as "temporary and contingent". I am quite sure I have seen other Wiki pages with statements such as "As of year X there are Y ...", but maybe these pages were also in bad style, or maybe it's acceptable on some pages but not on biographies? Can you point me to the exact rule which prevents pages from listing someone's accomplishments up to a certain year?

Also, undoing the entire edit, you removed the Scopus link at the very bottom (Section External links). Would it be ok to re-add that? OR Scholar (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to see these sorts of numbers on any article. WP:RS and WP:BLP are clear that (1) all claims on a biography of a living person must have references, and (2) search engine links are unacceptable as references, which usually rules out providing citation numbers. But separated from their context (who is counting, and exactly what do they count, and on what date were they counted) I also think it's pretty meaningless. For instance, DBLP lists me as having 191 journal papers, my own cv lists 187, MathSciNet lists 178, and zbMATH lists 176. Are any of these correct? I don't feel strongly about the Scopus link but see WP:ELMIN: we should try to have as few as possible external links like this. In the case of the Scopus link, I added it to their Wikidata page, causing it to appear in the article's Authority Control box, so it may not be necessary to have it as an explicit external link. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks for your answer. OR Scholar (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for assistance
Hi. I'm not sure I'm following correct procedure here, but rather than flag up an incidence of (what is to me) bullying, what I read on the page to flag such incidents suggested trying to resolve the matter by dispute resolution through an administrator, and hence I ended up here. If you would be willing to help and can spare the time please let me know. Thanks, (Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC))
 * If you're talking about the talk page messages you've been getting recently from User:Onel5969, that's not bullying, that's the normal sequence of events when someone (you) flouts Wikipedia's rule that deletion discussion banners be left in place for the course of the discussion. Removing the banner will not stop the discussion from happening; it will only prevent interested readers of the article from finding the discussion, leaving it for participants interested in deletion rather than in the article. If you're talking about something else, you'll need to be more specific. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

[For future reference: This ended up being discussed more extensively at with the same non-outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)]

DYK for Convex curve
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI
I’ve taken FerMATtos to ANI and thought you’d like to know.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed code
You removed some code from some articles. I think this makes the articles less comprehensible because I do not understand the mathematical formulas with subscript, superscript, weird symbols, etc so for me it is much easier to get an understanding by looking at the code. Frap (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you a computer? Pseudocode can be ok for articles about algorithms. It is not the right way to present computations that can be presented as a simple formula. And actual code is almost always a bad idea, for one thing because we cannot include the same code in every programming language you might prefer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Permutation graph
Hello, I saw that you added the definition for Permutation graph, but I have some doubts regarding its correctness, since some other sources, like this paper, say that if the permutation is $$P=[P_1, \ldots, P_n]$$, an edge $$v_iv_j$$ should only exist if $$iP^{-1}(j)$$, which involves an inverse function that's not present in the wiki article.

As I'm definitely no expert, I'm not sure if the two definitions contradict each other, or more specifically, if the $$P=[\ldots]$$ definition format means the same as $$P=(\ldots)$$, which seems to be the core problem here.

Is it perhaps the case that the former defines what element should be in the $$i$$th position, and the latter instead defines where the $$i$$ number should land? I vaguely recall reading about this some time ago, but now I can't find it. If that's the case, should the permutation that generates the graph in the wiki article image actually be $$(4,5,2,1,3)$$? Harmoniker666 (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This just renumbers the vertices, which makes no difference to the definition of the graph. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If I understood correctly, you meant that whether a graph is a permutation graph is not affected by how permutations are defined, right?
 * That's true, although there's still an inconsistency in the article that, if you follow the definition given in the "Definition and characterization" section, the permutation graph you get from $$(4,3,5,1,2)$$ is not the same as the one in the image, which seems to be generated by $$(4,5,2,1,3)$$ instead.
 * Just wondering if we should simply change the permutation in the image description, or change the definition of permutation graph. If you don't think the current definition and the one I gave contradict each other, then we can just change the permutation and that'll be all. Harmoniker666 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The image can be interpreted either as describing the permutation (4,3,5,1,2) or its inverse, without any relabeling. It merely depends on whether you think the top line is being permuted to produce the bottom one, or vice versa. I'll leave which one is which up to you because I always get it backwards. I'd put it down to my dyslexia (I still can't tell left from right without checking which hand has the ring on it) but I think the explanation is actually based on computational thinking: to me a permutation is an operation that permutes, not merely a bijection on indexes. And it's super easy to apply a permutation  to an array   by writing   but much more cumbersome to write as efficient a one-liner for the inverse operation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that by applying the permutation $$(4,3,5,1,2)$$ to the array $$[1,2,3,4,5]$$, you prefer to just get $$[4,3,5,1,2]$$? That's cool, but the definition you wrote on the article seems to use the other approach, which, if following the same permutation, permutes the array to $$[4,5,2,1,3]$$, so that if you draw the permutation graph based on that, it should actually include an edge between $$v_1$$ and $$v_2$$ among other differences with the current image.
 * I understand that there're two ways to look at the image, and both ways are correct in their own ways, but still, the article's definition and image description don't match. I could simply change the permutation in the image description, but doing so would not change the fact that the definition in the article still uses a rather unconventional way of permuting, and which is also the way you do not seem to prefer. Harmoniker666 (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the article's definition (how to determine permutation graphs from a sequence of the numbers 1,n in some scrambled order, and how to determine a set of line segments for which this is the intersection graph) and the figure (depicting a sequence of numbers in some scrambled order and the line segments determined from them using that determination) are the same. There is no inconsistency.
 * And as far as I can see the book definition you quote produces exactly the same graph, so there is again no consistency. It is labeled differently but the labeling is not part of the graph.
 * The inconsistency is between that and your view that these things must be labeled with the inverse permutation, which maybe would make sense for how permutations are conventionally applied to permute things, but the article is not about using permutations to permute things. That labeling makes no sense for the geometric construction depicted in the figure. It gives you numbers that do not look like the coordinates of the line segments. Why do you think it is essential to use this bad labeling? —David Eppstein (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because if the label is $$(4,3,5,1,2)$$, then according to the article's definition, $$1<2$$ and $$\sigma_1>\sigma_2$$, which naturally would mean that there should be an edge between $$v_1$$ and $$v_2$$, but there's none such edge in the image.
 * I know that it can be rather unfortunate if the image shows $$4,3,5,1,2$$ while the label says $$(4,5,2,1,3)$$, but if we keep the definition as it is, $$(4,5,2,1,3)$$ is the only correct label between these two that matches the definition. This bad labelling can be avoided if the definition is changed, so that we do not look at $$\sigma_i$$ and $$\sigma_j$$, but rather where the $$i$$ and $$j$$ numbers are situated after the permutation.
 * We only have these two choices, otherwise the three things - the definition, image and image description - just don't line up. Harmoniker666 (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When you say "there should be an edge between v1 and v2", you mean according to the different labeling of those vertices that you are using from a different source. There is an edge between the two vertices you mean, but they are labeled differently. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Different source? I was only stating what I got from the article page itself. Image label + definition -> edge between $$v_1$$ and $$v_2$$; image -> no edge. Harmoniker666 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, finally I see what you mean. I changed the text to match the image better. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! I also changed the second paragraph a bit so that it's consistent. Harmoniker666 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a super annoying thing about inversions that they can be recorded either in terms of the values or in terms of the positions and there's no canonical way to choose. --JBL (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I keep finding that my intuition is backwards from sources in this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Welp, I was hoping there could be a canonical way, that'd make this so much less confusing… Harmoniker666 (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ackermann coding
You should be more careful next time when other users' contributions. If you're not sure about something, you should discuss it on the talk page. 2601:547:501:8F90:6D91:586F:CC4B:73D2 (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * More careful to avoid what outcome? Preventing the article from being made worse? Hurting your feelings? And what gives you the impression that I was unsure of what I was doing in that case? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Incorrect content removal. No, from being improved.  My "feelings" have nothing to do with it. Refrain from personal attacks.  Your claim that the description of Ackermann coding doesn't belong there despite the Ackermann coding already being discussed in the very same section of the very same article. 2601:547:501:8F90:6D91:586F:CC4B:73D2 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating "it's mentioned in the same section" as if it somehow follows logically that, whenever a concept is mentioned, it is necessary to expand that mention to a highly technical exposition of the concept. It does not follow. It also does not follow that this fallacy in your own reasoning would produce unsureness in others. There is nothing "incorrect" about my removal of your off-topic material. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman of your own creation. It was not merely "mentioned", as you're falsely trying to insinuate.  Nonsense. It's a basic definition of the concept. In fact, the pre-existing description of Ackermann coding in that section was not even correct.  It is not off-topic, as I've already shown. 2601:547:501:8F90:6D91:586F:CC4B:73D2 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ackermann coding
Your recent editing history at Ackermann coding shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2601:547:501:8F90:6D91:586F:CC4B:73D2 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Lauura Pisati
Hallo David, you added the sentence "In her preface, Pisati wrote that it would be a mistake to omit formal proofs and that it is any more difficult to include this material.", but it isn't clear to me what it means. Could you clarify it, perhaps? Thanks. Pam D  15:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Missing word "not". Not any more difficult. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez 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/Katya Rodríguez-Vázquez 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 until the discussion has finished. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Image by you in NYTimes
I was reading this article in the New York Times, and I noticed that the credit underneath this image was a familiar name (and later on, they also quote post by you). Given how many free images about math you've posted, maybe this happens to you all the time, but I thought it was cool :-) - Astrophobe  (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it was cool too. I do tend to see my images all the time in technical talks, sometimes credited, sometimes not; it amuses me either way. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Polygonalization
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Polygonalization 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Polygonalization
The article Polygonalization 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:Polygonalization and Talk:Polygonalization/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Polygonalization
The article Polygonalization you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Polygonalization for comments about the article, and Talk:Polygonalization/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Name courtesy
As a matter of courtesy (in reference to the discussion at Template talk:Reflist), how would you prefer to be addressed, such as when pinged: given name, surname, title + surname, username? &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 10:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My preference would be first name or user name. I prefer not to be formal with titles here, and I don't like bare-surname forms of address. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Logic of graphs
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Logic of graphs 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Lithophane
Thanks for recreating this necessary article. But as you may have seen in various talk pages re the deletion, I said I would do so, and User:Johnbod/Lithophane is now ready for article space, if not quite finished. I don't think it's necessary to keep any of your stub. Do you want to do the replacement, which I can't do properly, keeping the history etc, or shall I ask another admin? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * In fact I did not see in various talk pages etc. I would normally just say, go ahead and replace. But your article, while significantly longer and more complete, is missing some important information that my stub has. For instance, your version gives full credit to a single inventor; the source I used states that there were three simultaneous patents by different inventors in different countries. Your version also fails to mention the modern application to accessibility. Did you base the outline of your new draft on what DC wrote, rather than ignoring it and looking up the subject independently yourself? That is a recipe for a bad article, because you are then going to repeat the oversights, hyperfocus on localized subtopics, and historical inaccuracies typical of DC articles (as you appear to have done). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Phooey, looks like Plan B then. Your version doesn't actually say "there were three simultaneous patents by different inventors in different countries", nor do I believe there were. You obviously haven't made any attempt to compare my version with the DC one, except perhaps as to length. I suggest you do so before repeating these silly accusations. I used my standard top quality ceramics refs. Where they differ from Carney (who I can't see), I'm inclined to follow them. I don't think "the modern application to accessibility" a) amounts to anything much and b) properly falls under lithophane, which is all about light, not forms of braille sculpture. But, as I say, thanks for making the attempt. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So the fact that, for instance, your draft uses an identical choice of images and layout for those images to the DC version is just a total coincidence; you chose those images and how to format them completely independently of the previous article? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As the edit summary says, my draft began with the "skeleton" sent me by MER-C see User_talk:MER-C (and the lithophane section below), but none of the text. In fact the "choice of images and layout for those images" has changed very considerably as my draft developed, if you can be bothered to look, and may yet be changed more. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Logic of graphs
The article Logic of graphs 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:Logic of graphs and Talk:Logic of graphs/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

New religious movement COI
Hi, can you check the merge discussion here Talk:Ayya Vaikundar. Ayya Vaikundar is about the 19-century founder of Ayyavazhi, a new religious movement in India, but you cannot make head and tails of what the article is even about in the first place if you come across it. It appears COI editing has ensured this article remains split into a hagiography versus a historical account - Historical Vaikundar. Should this not be the other way around? With the primary article being about the person, i.e., something like Jesus and Jesus in Christianity or a merger as proposed above. Please help, the current articles appears completely unintelligible to an average reader. Gotitbro (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no particular interest in or understanding of religious movements in India. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Logic of graphs
The article Logic of graphs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logic of graphs for comments about the article, and Talk:Logic of graphs/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dehn invariant
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dehn invariant 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Spamming by SAGE Publications?
I'm posting here because you commented on one of my draftifies. I now see the appropriate claim for NPROF. But there seems to be a few Sage Publications-related topics that are being put in mainspace, maybe spammed. User:Sungodtemple/Draftify log #23 thru #28 are all somewhat related. #23, #24, #25, #26 all use Sage as a source / talk about a journal published by sage, were created within roughly an hour of each other, and were all created by new users that had few edits outside of creating these articles. #27, #28 were created by user with blatant promo issues, once again representing Sage. Do you think these are these related? What venue, if any, should I take this to? Sungodtemple (talk &#8226; contribs) 02:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:COIN maybe? The good-faith explanation is that some disinterested editor looking for people who might be notable enough to add has found a set of such people in the SAGE editorial boards, and is going through them. I do this all the time myself for different sets of people (currently going through CNRS Silver Medalists, for instance). But there's also a reasonable likelihood that this is someone affiliated with SAGE trying to promote them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Undone additions to mesh generation page.
David, I see that have undone an addition that I made to the "mesh generation" page. I added a link to a commercial mesh generation package to a list of commercial mesh generation packages. The link is definitely not spam. Ennova is a real product. Hohmeyer (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You think the links other spammers add are to sites that are not real? What would be the point of that? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is not that the link is "real", but that the product linked to is "real" and useful. If you have a link to Ansys why not have a link to Ennova ? Spam would be if the a link was placed there to a product that was not a mesh generation product. Hohmeyer (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a pile of spam there is not a valid excuse to put more spam on the pile. See also Alice's Restaurant, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:WHATABOUTX, and WP:ELNO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is true but irrelevant as this is not spam. Hohmeyer (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See also Potato Potahto. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to let you know I see all your work creating bios for female scientists. It rules. Thanks man. jengod (talk) 07:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dehn invariant
The article Dehn invariant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dehn invariant for comments about the article, and Talk:Dehn invariant/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Christine Joblin
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Undone Additions to Gregory and Leibniz Series.
Hi David, I am ok with the reverts, if you are the arbitrator. But it would be nice to have a good reason. I did it as I thought that currently the sentence (Gregory series doesn't converge well) is no longer valid. But I didn't know which person the bring this topic up with. Please can you respond. The edit link is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregory%27s_series&oldid=prev&diff=1144729052 Brian (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Brian. I think nuking your comment off the talk page is a bit harsh (cf. WP:BITE), but note that Wikipedia is not really intended as a place to promote new non-peer-reviewed research to the world. The series most certainly converges slowly still. There have been many past efforts to speed up convergence starting with Newton in the 17th century (I hope to fill in a bit of historical detail about that in the future, though I am not an expert). The general subject is interesting and not super well covered on Wikipedia. If you want to research past work on this topic and summarize what you find in an encyclopedic manner that would be worthwhile effort. –jacobolus (t) 09:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did provide a reason, both in my edit summaries and in a longer reply at WT:WPM. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have replied to it as well. Brian (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jacobolus, I hope my answers in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics may be sufficient to answer my intenions for actually putting it on wikipedia. Actually I was pursuing this topic on some other forum. But then I didn't like the sentence of "convergence" in there. Like I said many non-mathematicians arrive at that page. The reason places like wikipedia exist is for TLDRs. A little inkling that there already are solutions to this would be better to put on the page. How can we rely on the sanctity of the collective human knowledge if the custodians omit important points? - is what I am trying to say. But fiercely guarding these pages is also important and so I am not troubled by what Dave did. However, I think the last point you mention here is a good one. Thanks Brian (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (a) There is in my opinion no such thing as "sanctity of collective human knowledge", (b) Wikipedia does not aim to be a collection (let alone sanctuary) of all knowledge, (c) Wikipedia editors are not "custodians" or "guardians" even if they disagree about what should be in Wikipedia, and (d) your paper isn't currently fit for including here not because it is inherently bad, but because it does not meet the guidelines – developed by community consensus – about reliable sources WP:RS and original research WP:OR. That doesn't mean you did anything wrong though; it’s just a lack of familiarity with prevailing Wikipedia practice. Please stick around and contribute where you can. The section about convergence in Gregory's series is not meant to be the last word – every article should be considered a work in progress – and can certainly be improved/expanded, so long as any added material is verifiable (cf. WP:V). –jacobolus (t) 20:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Polygonalization
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Please help/guide me
I have created the article Pop Kaun? which clearly passes WP:NTVLOCAL. But the user MrsSnoozyTurtle constantly harassing (or badgering) my all articles. I have created a few WP:NPOL with AfC submission. But, regarding creations of TV series articles per WP:NTVNATL I have my strong belief that I am not violating any rule of Wikipedia. User @MrsSnoozyTurtle did here and have/has done again here. Please guide me. Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not have enough knowledge of which Indian media are reliable publications and which are fancruft, nor enough interest in this sort of programming, to give you any sort of useful reply. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Even so thank you for your kind response. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Allpar
Hi, I see you deleting hundreds of Allpar references. I would like to point out to you that the initial posts (the lion's share of the content) are posted by moderators and cannot be considered to be user-generated. I recommend starting a discussion and inviting involved editors before continuing blanket deletions. Thank you,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You appear to have failed to read my edit summaries. I DID start a discussion, on WP:RSN, where such discussion belongs. "Posted by moderators" is no excuse for WP:USERGENERATED (we don't allow citations to other Wikipedia articles, for instance, even if the article happened to be written by an administrator) and the clear consensus of the RSN discussion so far is that these references are not reliable. As for your "deleting hundreds": so far, I have removed these references from exactly ten articles, out of the 433 that initially contained them. Ten is rather fewer than hundreds. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the summaries. I am here to add content or to improve articles; I have no interest in spending all of my time on WP:RSN and the several other locations where deletionists gather so that I can keep track of what is about to be voided en masse. It is considered polite to notify editors who have worked very hard on articles before deleting, or, even better, to involve those editors in discussions.
 * As far as moderators go, the moderators at Allpar.com are nothing like mere users and their posts are as well researched as any reliable source on the topic of Mopar cars (rather better than most, to be honest). Where do you recommend we can go to undo this?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  00:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "It is considered polite to notify editors who have worked very hard on articles before deleting, or, even better, to involve those editors in discussions": I deleted no content. Also see WP:BOLD. Maybe you could put more effort into searching for reliable replacement citations, and less into whining that someone noticed the inadequacy of your existing citations.
 * "I worked hard on it" is a bad excuse for sloppy work. It doesn't fly anywhere else and it doesn't fly here. Work better, not harder.
 * I recommend you not try to undo this. I recommend you not make special pleading for how some user-generated content should be treated differently than others. I recommend you fix your citations rather than trying to hold onto your bad citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * These are not "my" citations, they have been added by many many editors over the years because allpar has been a very good source. Much of the allpar content is not, to the best of my knowledge, available anywhere else as Zatz had unusual access to direct sources. Allpar was not directly user generated - the main content was published by the editors themselves and they had a roster of standard contributors, sometimes additional content would be accepted from others after an editing and review process. These are not bad citations, unless you only read USERGENERATED with the intent of deleting as much as possible. There are allpar references nearly twenty years old, and as far as I know the veracity have never been in doubt - and still aren't. I agree that the site is changing into something else and I do not want to use anything published after 2019/2020 (?, not sure when they changed the format).
 * The essentially closed discussion at RSN involved you and three others; to make it actually public you would have to involve people who have some involvement in the matter. Most editors do not hang around RSN. To me, Wikipedia's main problems are the steady stream of IP vandalism or the inane ChatGPT-generated content that is beginning to mount, rather than worrying about whether a fraction of a source was user generated.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your GA nomination of Unit fraction
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unit fraction 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Brachy0008 -- Brachy0008 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Python code in the max sub array value question
With regards to the Python code, that you changed back. I hear your point but the output still isn't matching. Using the given code, try the array; [6, 7, -1, -1, -2, 4, 1], you should get 14 as the answer instead you get 8. 14 is correct. There are positive and negative values in the input. 2601:600:897F:A770:589:3467:5BA9:7263 (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * When I run the exact code of the article, before your change, in Python, on the array [6, 7, -1, -1, -2, 4, 1], I get 14 as your answer. The change you made is a very frequent mistake. It changes the algorithm from allowing empty arrays (with sum zero) to disallowing empty arrays (and returning a negative number on an all-negative input). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unit fraction
The article Unit fraction you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unit fraction for comments about the article, and Talk:Unit fraction/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Brachy0008 -- Brachy0008 (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)