User talk:David Eppstein/2008c

This is an archive of past discussions with User:David Eppstein. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pie!

		Have a Pie!
		You are hereby awarded ONE PIE for having the Edit Summary of the Weekend [[1]]

Arakunem^Talk 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, pie. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Elbow criterion"

Hi. Re this, please engage with the IP at the article talk, where he presents his arguments. If indeed it is not OR, you can easily prove the case by referencing the section, which would have the happy byproduct of greatly improving the article. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

David, the description of "Elbow criterion" is completely bogus as well as the use of the term "cluster." Please take a moment and think about it. A cluster is not an attribute. A cluster value is merely the count of elements with identical logic values in a multiset where K determines the number of attributes in the subset and $T=V^{K}$ , where T is the truth table or multiset size or total number of possible cluster locations in the multiset created by the subset, V is the highest value of logic (highest logic value plus one) in the group and K is as stated above. Number of clusters refers to the number of clusters in the multiset. See diagram below. 71.100.14.204 (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

71.100.14.204 (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also see multiset counts. 71.100.14.204 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

about fibonacci numbers and fractals

Dear DR EPPSTEIN, I suggest you to manage a bit deleions pending on your personal article page Perhaps are ther some links with your "objective" rage?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Eppstein

Kind regards

nota; for your information I have also published a bit on TSP problem... are you interested?

Please: I plan to increase this small potential article on fibonacci and fractals

Thanks for your comprehension

A single undo of your edits in the past weeks counts as "rage"? You have a strange sense of proportion. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Xian-Jin Li

If Xian-Jin Li is Chinese like I'm pretty sure the name implies, then "Xian-Jin" is his family's surname and "Li" is his given name. It's like Yao Ming: the reason "Yao" appears on the back of his basketball jersey is because that's his family's surname. In China it's backwards. So the default sort on X-J's page should actually read the reverse of what it was originally made. It's weird, I know, but it's the way Chinese names work. Go figure, right? -Jrcla2 ^(talk)^(contribs) 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that the Chinese, when writing in Chinese, write the surname first, but Li sounds to me like a Chinese surname and Xian-Jin sounds to me like a Chinese given name. Also, Chinese academics often use the Western name order. So I don't think you can judge just from the fact that he's Chinese. Do you have any more specific knowledge that would indicate which name is which? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there is some verifiable way of finding out if X-J Li Westernized his name? I mean I agree with you, this one could go either way, considering neither one of us is Chinese and both of our reasons are valid. You can change it back if you want to, since there is no clear consensus on the order he chose for his name, but if you want to try and research that to put this issue to rest that'd be more effective. -Jrcla2 ^(talk)^(contribs) 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out the alphabetization of the bibliography in arXiv:math/0403148. I think that's enough for me to turn it back. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Adam Pease and Josef Urban

Could you perhaps have a look at these two computer scientist bios? It appears that one created an article for the other. Urban created the Pease article and is rather aggressive about it (see Talk:Adam Pease). Pease seems to be notbale, but not Urban. But computer science is not my field and after my experience with Urban's aggressiveness, I don't want to tag the Urban article (even less prod it...) before having a better-informed opinion. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Resurrection

Can you please take a look at the article User:Hudavendigar/Feigl and make some comments and see if it looks ok to release now? I am trying to get feedback from folks who were involved in the deletion. Thanks.--Murat (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see that the new revision addresses any of my concerns from the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Graph theorists

David, I don't mind you listing any of those prominent graph theorists if you cite a source, or link an a sourced article. But a bare redlink wiht a claim of prominent is a no-go, wouldn't you agree? Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a similar claim of prominence-among-graph-theorists for the bluelinks? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, yes. But I'm presuming that most of those blue links do at least lead to some support for the people being into graph theory. It wouldn't hurt if someone checked, and even copied over sources for them. Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"dubious reference"?

User:Mikkalai wrote in the article Graph isomorphism:

"dubious reference and deletion of my changes. Please provide a reputable ref.", about:

"Regular graphs are very difficult for such testing and many of them are very important for chemistry (for example, Cyclohexane, Benzene, Cuneane, Dodecahedrane etc.), but their part among chemical compounds is small, and decreases with increasing of number of vertices<--ref>M.I.Trofimov, E.A.Smolenskii, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 2005, Vol. 54, 9, 2235. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6)<--/ref>."

Is Russian Chemical Bulletin reprinted by Springer-Verlag is not "a reputable ref."? Is it "dubious reference"? Is User:Mikkalai is expert for such statements?

See, also in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "Who the heck is this Trofimov? What's his international scientific recognition? Why his stuff deserves place in encyclopedia? `'Míkka>t 19:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)"--Tim32 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Graphs

I reviewed the definition of the category in question and I see your point. But I also see some inconveniences in the current categorization. I will think a bit what can be done to depopulate the category "graph theory".

Out of the head I would suggest the following: "Graphs" must be the top category for everything have the name "bla-bla-bla graph". It must have a subcategory "Individual graphs" for the likes of the "Petersen graph". Its opposition would be "Classes of graphs". The latter one may have "Parameterized families of graphs" (complete graph, path graph, etc.), "Families of graph by construction" (subcateg: "Graph operations", for Cartesian product of graphs) and "Families of graphs by property" (connected graph, regular graph). I understand, the latter ones may overlap, but the basis for categorization is the main definition of the graph class in question (in some cases there may be several equivalent definitions, so the article may be labelled by several categories).

Also, what do you think about subcat "Parts of graph" (or something) within "graph theory", for things like connected component, subgraph, clique, etc. ?

Finally, if you think that this discussion deserves a broader participation, can you invite more people and/or move this discussion to a better place? I am new here, so I may not have a good idea where to talk. Twri (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have Category:Graph families for classes of graphs that are too broad to fit into Category:Graphs. Some of the articles that you placed into Graphs could better have gone into there. I don't think of Category:Graph operations as describing a family of graphs, but rather as describing certain functions on graphs, just as you wouldn't think of the article on integer multiplication as describing a set of integers (the composite numbers, say) but as being on the operation itself. As for "parts of graph": I'd prefer a broad enough category name that it could also include structures defined on all of a graph, such as colorings (though coloring already has its own subcategory).

Why does Category:Graph theory need to be depopulated, anyway? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Over 200 entries. If it can be done gracefully and not artificially, then why not? How about "Concepts in graph theory" (for graph theoretical objects and relations, such as subgraphs, cuts, distances, graph invariants, etc.)? This will leave out theorems, algorithms and other works of mind. Twri (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeann Low

My apologies. I thought WP:PROF stood for Prossfesional, not academics. My bad. Sorry for the confusuins. The matter has been rendered moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Law and Inequality

I've never left a message on here, so pardon me if I didn't do it properly. I have added information and citations to the page for the Journal of Law & Inequality (I am a current member of the journal), so hopefully this will be satisfactory for preventing the page from being deleted. Please let me know if it is not. SHoffEsq (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding the following to Brocard's conjecture (in unsolved problems) article ?

Hi David,

Would you agree to add my following conjectures (in OEIS, sci.math.research, NUMTHRY and primepuzzles.net) to the Brocard's conjecture (in unsolved problems) article (of course if you consider those notable)?

1) n! + n^2 != m^2 (except for trivial case with n=0, m=1) per conducted calculations doesn't yield any solutions from n=1 to n= 200,000 Current proof is only available for the case when n is prime numbern is prime number 2) n! + Sum(j^2, j=1, j=n) != m^2 per conducted calculations doesn't yield any solutions from n=1 to n= 2,000,000 Current proof is only available for the case when n is prime number and some other sub cases. 3) n! + prime(n) != m^k is too difficult to cover by exhaustive calculations ... Current proof is only available for the case when k=2

Thanks, Best Regards, Alexander R. Povolotsky Apovolot (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azhar Iqbal

Hello David. I left a note for you over at the Azhar Iqbal AFD but not knowing if you have kept it watchlisted I thought it best to drop by here to let you know. It's nothing earth shattering, just that I think that there is more than one A.Iqbal and the one with the cites is not the one with the article - all explained on the AFD. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 08:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias on Wikipedia?

I suppose it doesn't concern you at all that there is at least one editor, Blanchardb, who could have a christian bias when editing pages? It concerns me on more than a few levels. I would assume there are more than just this editor, which is even worse. How can we know that pages are being evaluated fairly and justly, without religious bias? AstroComfy (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)AstroComfy

Someone is wrong on the internet? Why should this concern me, in particular? Is there any overlap between the pages Blanchardb has edited and the ones I have? I mean, yes, it concerns me that some Wikipedia editors are biased, but coming to my talk page and telling me I must do something instead of going through the usual mechanisms such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment smacks of forum shopping to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking through your own contributions more carefully, I suspect that this may have something to do with my recent deletion of Minnesota Atheists. Let me reassure you that it was not because of (or at least not directly because of) Blanchardb's speedy deletion tag (he tagged it with WP:CSD#G11, "blatant advertising", which does not fit the content of the page). But that tag caused me to take a closer look at the page and discover that its text seemed to be entirely copied from the Minnesota Atheists own web site. That is not an appropriate way to write an article on Wikipedia — it should be in your own words and it should include references to third-party published material about the group (such as newspaper stories) rather than the group's own material. To do otherwise risks deletion not just on copyright violation grounds (WP:CSD#G12, the speedy deletion criterion I used) but also WP:CSD#A7, an article about a group that does not describe why the group passes our criteria for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

János Pach‎

Thanks for your help with the János Pach‎ page. It's good to have all his books listed, but I do have a problem with all these papers you added. I think this list is rather selective and inherently biased. For someone with over 200 papers, you can't just cherry pick 5-6 of them and say that these are the most cited one. I feel this is OR. Also, other people like László Lovász or Noga Alon have similarly over 200 papers and not a single paper reference - they just did so much, no mater what you choose you will be unfair to the rest.

Here is what I propose. I keep you field description, but write "His work includes... " instead of "most cited". I remove all papers and make a ref to Pach's own list of publication on his webpage. Let me know if you object. Mhym (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use any particular care or expertise or opinion in picking the papers to list. They are simply the most cited according to Google scholar, skipping the books. Counter-proposal: we keep it as is but with a footnote pointing to the Google scholar search. As for the failure to explain what Lovász and Alon are actually known for: WP:WAX. I think it is harmful to have articles on academics that state only when they received their Ph.D., what positions they held, and what awards they won, without saying anything that would distinguish a computer scientist from a paleontologist. We should be explaining their work and connecting their articles to the articles that describe in more detail the sorts of problems they worked on. We should fix the Lovász and Alon articles, not cut the Pach one down to their level. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I guess I still disagree. In fact, using Google Scholar search as a the source of what's "most cited" might be in direct vio with WP:SET, the "what it cannot do" section. It is plausible that Google Scholar does give reasonable ordering of Pach's paper with respect to what's most popular right now. However, there are obvious limitations of this approach, e.g. some older extremely influential papers may be largely uncited in recent years due to the fact that better results are available. I would be much happier if Pach had somewhere his own list of favorite/important papers (like they require on some grant proposals). Anyhow, I am back with my earlier proposal - I don't see a neutral and NOR way to select <10 papers out of 200+. On the other hand, if all you want to say "Pach worked on ... and ..." - you don't need these papers to confirm that. Just use Pach's CV. Finally, as for paleontology vs. CS -- I really don't know the difference as I don't know either of these fields. I do know, however, that people's pages should talk about people and their bio, and make only short general references to the science they do. The details should be left to pages on this science. Mhym (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a list of good papers, or most favorite papers, or even most influential papers (we're probably going to have to wait for someone else to write a retrospective of Pach's work to get those). It's simply a list of the papers with the largest numbers of citations, as measured by a reasonably objective source. How is this non-neutral? And what's the point of making articles about academics so bland and indistinguishable that one could substitute one for another almost independent of field? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Null graph a tree?

Last September you wrote in null graph that "although the null graph is a forest (a graph with no cycles), it is not a tree, as trees have one connected component." But the standard definition of tree with which I'm familiar is "connected acyclic graph," and the null graph is connected, if only vacuosly so. Were you working from some definition that explicitly requires exactly one component? Such a definition would seem to me more forced, less natural than "connected and acyclic."

Anyway, I'm tempted to delete your " $(\emptyset ,\emptyset )$ is not a tree" comment, but would like to know your thoughts first.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A more clear argument: trees have one more vertex than edge. The graph with no vertices doesn't. But in any case we should be going by the consensus of the literature rather than trying to make up original justifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, after resort to my bookshelf, I've concluded that although a case could be made against it, I'm gonna go with your assertion. After all, Bondy and Murty (for instance) define connectedness (and thus tree) to mean possessing exactly one component. My own intuition or aesthetic would prefer to call the null graph connected because, like K₁, it contains no two vertices that are not connected. But I bow to greater authority.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks, ARP Apovolot (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter Godfrey-Smith

Nice job! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the article could be expanded a lot more, but it's a start. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

father

Sorry, regardless of our different politics, I am really sorry, if I hurt anybody' s personal feelings here. My excuse: I have had a difficult time with my father (he is dement now) recently and was a bit pissed that someone should drag his helpless father into political statements. Also it really backfires seen from the enemy's standpoint (?): communist father, radical son. --Radh (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is in regard to Michael Klonsky, right? I don't think my own political beliefs have any relation to this at all (for instance, I've also edited John Smietanka, about a politician with far different beliefs than MK), but I thought the connection with his father was notable and interesting enough to include — it gives some hint where his own political beliefs came from, especially given the formative time in MK's life at which his father was arrested. I don't see this in terms of enemies and strategies: it's factual, relevant, and documented, therefore it should be included, regardless of whom it helps or hurts. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course and I really am sorry. I usually try to "attack" ideas, not people and I really did not try to smear you or something.--Radh (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

red auxiliary numbers

David,

What are you thinking of when you ask for additional footnotes? Be specific! The "Crest of the Peacock" citation, offers direct chapter and verse related to three practice problems that Ahmes detailed to learn the method. Have you worked even one of the problems, i.e. RMP 23? Beyond Ahmes' practice problems you may rhetorically7 claim that red auxiliary numbers were not applied to create optimized, but not an optimal, 2/n table --- but if you do - you must be specific!

That is, rhetoric is one thing. Mathematics and science are two deeper subjects. I have shown that every 51 2/n problem followed the three RMP 21, 22, and 23 practice problems. Ahmes easily practiced selecting LCM's to solve a series of unit fractions summed to a given number, as anyone can see by working the practice problems. Like arithmetic progressions, red auxiliary number selections Ahmes used a central formula, and altered its parameters working problems forwards, backwards, from the middle.

Moreover, all 26 EMLR 1/p and 1/pq conversion problems also practiced selecting non-opimtal LCM's, a second level that confirms the scientific hypothesis that Ahmes had used the red auxiliary numbers to create his 2/n table and complete the conversion of any n/p or n/pq vulgar fraction to an 'optimized' - but not always optimal -- Egyptian fraction remainder.

The remainder topic is a subject that is also critical to complete a red auxiliary debate, another issue that you may be silently protesting, asking for a 'sky hook' to hang your algorithmic view of Ahmes' arithmetic. Ahmes used no central algorithms, that I know of (prove me wrong - say using the greedy algorithm to create Ahmes' 2/n table) despite several U.K. universities suggesting that you are on a productive path.

The best, and likely the only path, to decode Ahmes RMP, as Ahmes originally wrote the text, is to work every one of his 84 problems and 51 2/n table entries, forwards, backwards, and from the middle, changing any and all parameters in each formula that entered the text. ~~Milogardner, 11/2/08.

Best Regards,

~Milogardner

I'm thinking that the whole thing looks like original research and I would like citations to people other than you who use the exact phrase "red auxiliary number" as well as citations to papers in which each of the various statements you make in the article can be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, now that a challenge was thrown your way - you change the subject. The only one that is conducting original -- unproven research -- cited on Wikipedia as gospel is yourself. Every one of my points are documented by several others -- none of them being myself.

To answer your request to show one other use of the term, I have shown two, George C. Joseph, on two pages with three specific problems and Richard Gillings on 12 pages in a wide array of problems.

As I look your sage advise to read Sigler's translation of the Liber Abaci, I offer equally important advise in return

Thanks for the comment, any way.

Best Regards,

~~milogardner

Dear David,

Thank you very much for the suggested lead-in paragraph. It was needed. However, overall the Wikipedia entry can only discuss the three practice problems with clarity. To go beyond the three problems, and declare full knowledge of Ahmes' applications of red auxiliary numbers, the Wikipedia original research line would not only be crossed, but it would be grossly violated. That is, to remain within Wikipedia ethics, the 'obvious' details of Ahmes' red auxiliary LCMs applications must be left to the reader. Hopefully, this confusing 'uncompleted aspect of red auxiliary numbers' will be removed in the near future. ~~Milo 11/2/08

One way to remove 'red auxiliary number' doubt is to rigorously consider LCMs, past and present, as three Russian encyclopedia entries briefly discuss in terms of aliquot parts (the additive aspect of the Hultsch-Bruins method) as cited on the math forum:

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6492421&tstart=0

Best Regards,

Milo 11/11/08 11:35 am

Proposed deletion of Junio Hamano

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Junio Hamano, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 71.61.220.126 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. FWIW, I agree with the prod. If he had created Git, that would be something, but he's only a maintainer of it. My only contribution to this article has been to fix how it's sorted in its categories. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Vrajlal Sapovadia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Vrajlal Sapovadia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vrajlal Sapovadia. Thank you. Edcolins (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC) .

Thanks. I considered nominating it myself but wasn't sure enough that it should be deleted to do so. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Love Systems

Hi David,

I saw you posted on the deletion review discussion of "Love Systems", and it seems like the page got deleted again even though the new page conforms to the Wikipedia policies. Could you have a look at the page? I would appreciate any help on reviving the page. Thanks. Coaster7 (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

conway's clown pattern

dear Dr Epstein, there is not self promotion but only the initial release posted by EverGreg. This result is original (running 30 years ago on large ancestors computers then published in my referenced book 20 years ago). It shows the case of a complex patterns example Sincerely yours regards jean claude perez

Jean-claude perez (talk) 08:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In defense of the 'pedia

http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=367

Thanks for stepping up to the plate there. My comment is still awaiting moderation, thought it is probably along the same lines as yours. Part of me wants to say that this is an image and outreach problem--that we can solve this through action and communication. Another part of me is resigned to the possibility that some people may just not be the right 'fit' for wikipedia.

Needless to say, the discussion there is a little more sensible than the /. discussion, which (As usual) is almost completely unhelpful.

Hopefully a few of those folks drop by and help to improve articles.

Protonk (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You have an admirer

If imitation is really the sincerest form of flattery, anyway. It's not doing anything particularly disruptive so I haven't blocked it, but I hear a faint sound of quacking. – iride scent 20:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't help you identify the perpetrator, I'm afraid, but I guess unless it does something bad there's no need to. Thanks for the heads up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jean-Claude Perez

You the one that protected this? Sorry to trouble you, but can I get it unprotected, please? There's a member of the French National Assembly by this name - not the writer - and I'd like to stub his article if I can. Please respond on my talkpage, thanks. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks kindly. I'll fill it in shortly. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

bioethics article on McGee

David, I am guessing given your normal rigor that it is safe to assume that you of all people know that a pair of articles in one magazine, which if you read the history of this article are continually replanted here despite having been rebuffed uniformly in a dozen other places (which are constantly deleted), are both accurate and reflect a "controversy" that simply ought not die and moreover should define Glenn McGee. The article isn't a whitewash, it is an ever-shrinking account of a person in the field of bioethics and their role in that field. There was significant debate among people who know nothing of the field about whether there should even be an article, still more about whether it should be just an article about the controversy, and then it was made clear by vote and by Crusio that a good version had been obtained. The version you reverted to was not one of those that had been agreed upon - those versions were prior to edits that reintroduced ad hominem phraseology (of the sort you'd hate, I would have guessed, like "abrupt dismissal" - when there was no dismissal (and in fact McGee v. Albany Med is still under a veil except for the fact that McGee is a professor at Albany Med). The ad hominem language was ALL introduced by people who DONT EXIST, most of whom are CLEARLY located at competitive institutions or who actually *do* have COI - all of whom just disappeared after dropping their bombs. It is impossible to wrap one's mind around why you'd introduce the idea of whitewashing without reading anything whatsoever about McGee other, obviously, than the discredited articles, when there are, what, 21,000 web pages about McGee including a dozen other profiles, and many deal with the inaccuracies in the "controversy" pieces, both of which, again, are not magazine but web articles and both of which were followed by nothing at all save for attacks on the hatchet job pieces. Those articles don't define McGee. Go back and look at the versions from far before their publication. The WP McGee article was a reference for scholarly work done by McGee not a billboard or whitewash. It was CRUSIO who introduced the language of "minor controversy" because HE and not anyone else believed, as did the people who voted the article should stay, that the "minor controversy" had been radically overplayed by vandals. You don't even seem to have noticed that or done any of the relevant research at all - why?? This is not like you.

Factorization original research

A Mathworld associate was able to help me find a published reference for this principle, so I've resubmitted it. If you have any further editorial comments, I'll be happy to make them. The reference has been added to the image details. It isn't an earth shattering principle, but I find it interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JNLII (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. FYI I've nominated for deletion the PDF that you deleted as original research from Integer factorization at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_December_5. Thanks for noticing this issue! Dcoetzee 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. I didn't realize that original work was not permitted on Wikipedia. I also didn't realize that my submission would be considered original work, since it is an approach that I used going back to my college days and programming in FORTRAN. I could try to find a reference if that would help. But more importantly, I am interested in a format where original work may be submitted. I do have a lot of work that I would consider original work and I've thought about writing it up and submitting it through Wikipedia to share with the public community. I usually provide a significant amount of proof and demonstration in my papers to ward off valid criticisms. In other words, my methods are tested and sound. It is my desire to contribute a lifetime of work and I don't want anything in return other than a belief that someone may be able to use the information that I'm providing. Face it, most of the information on the internet is not linked to published referenes and Wikipedia is no exception. If I were keeping to published works, I'd stay with something like PubMed. Sometimes I find the Wikipedia format a bit difficult to use. For example, I don't understand what an "orphin" is or how my file could be an orphin when I was logged on to claim responsibility for it when it was submitted. If you know of a format where new ideas are welcome and new scientific ideas are free to be spoken, shared, and built upon, I'd be interested in submitting my original work through such a format. Bottom-line, my work is valid and there is no danger of anyone being sued for its use. I always agree to that term during submission. I'm just searching for a way to leave my work for others to apply or build upon or even debate. I once tried looking into submitting my work for publication in a journal, but they either want money and/or they won't except Word or PDF files. For living in a country that claims free speech, I've had the hardest time finding a voice, and I'm not even trying to express an opinion. I'm talented at developing new statistical methods, but I'm not as talented at figuring out how to get it to others for review, argument, or use. Mentoring on this problem is welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JNLII (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer at least one of your questions: an orphan is a media file that is not used within any article; your pdf document became an orphan when I unlinked it from the integer factorization article. As for what can be used as sources and links for Wikipedia article: as you say, many of them are not linked to published references but that's a bug not a feature. Preferably, everything here should be sourceable to work that has been published by a reliable source (say, a peer-reviewed number theory journal for work about factorization). It's entirely possible that everything in the document you uploaded can be so sourced, but it's up to you to find those sources (e.g. using Google scholar or Google books), and to reference them within the article. If you want to publish your pdf file describing your technique in detail, but don't want to try persuading professional number theorists that you have made a valid research contribution, there are lots of free-hosting sites on the internet but Wikipedia isn't one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me some direction for finding a format to release my work. If I find a reference for the file in question, I'll resubmit it. It was a long time ago and it may actually be something that I came up with, but forgot. As far as convincing "professional" number theorists, I've found that unless you have something to offer them, they aren't very interested at looking at new things. I would love nothing more than to have a discussion about observations, debate points, and raise questions about the next step of development. I've worked with academics and scientists in private industry and the academics seem to lack a certain level of professionalism or vision. Believe it or not the best audience for introducing new ideas that have application is the private industry. The catch is that if you offer something too new, regulated industry will shy away from it unless it is endorsed by a "professional" academic and sometimes that isn't enough. But, every good lawyer and industry has a "professional" academic or doctor in their pocket, who will support their perspective. How many examples do you want (the denial of global warming, the denial that cigarettes cause cancer, etc.)? All of these conflicting "professional" opinions can't be correct. Some of these arguments are down right embarrassing. As far as pure scientific research, I think that most academics are under too much pressure to develop their own ideas, so they don't have the time or peace of mind needed to "smell the flowers" or appreciate anything that isn't related to their own objectives. This is also true of industry, but that goes without saying. If I were interested in making a name for myself, I'd have to limit myself to working on the fade topic of the day, or present myself as a potential investor in their work. It's all about money or favors, not pure academics. I've already tried making "professional" friends for pure academic discussion, but as I pointed out, it comes down to what can you do for me. The only time that I can recall getting any attention from an academic statistician was when they thought that I could outsource some work to them. My career has been rooted in industry, but my personal research is of the purest form of academic endeavor that you can find (no motive, just fun). Perhaps the answer is creating my own website, but I'd prefer to be a part of a community, because it's the sharing of ideas and constructive criticisms, which helps me believe that there are other pure academics out there. There are already too many disconnected websites hosted by isolated mathematicians and the vast majority of these sites fail to present any original material, so I really don't understand their purpose. Perhaps, a new online community portal should be created to rival Wikipedia on state of the art ideas. Academic institutions have finally realized that they can't limit themselves to the old school format, why should research? The internet is a great tool for communication. It should also be a great tool for sharing new innovative ideas. Just saying this has got my mind thinking about the potential for connecting industry to problem solvers. Sounds like a good race to see who can achieve such a thing. Maybe, I should enter? Maybe, its possible? Thanks for making me give some thought to fixing this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.99.16.91 (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

transitivity

there is no good reason not to have a ql interpretation of transitivity.it is very likely that it will help someone and if ppl don't understand then they can ignore it.wikipedia is not logic for dumbies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.112 (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images of children

I'd be interested in the reason you closed the above-captioned proposal as "Failed" within 90 minutes of its opening and before anyone had commented. I don't have a position on the matter, but this seems a trifle abrupt. Do you know something about it that the rest of us don't? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There were dozens of comments on its talk page, which as far as I could see were uniformly negative. See WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. Thanks for the polite, prompt response. I didn't look at the talk page, as you may have gathered. I was thinking that comments would be of the "Support", "Oppose" variety and would be found on the project page itself. I do apologise for my thick-headedness. It is -14 here, with high winds and blowing snow; perhaps my brain has frozen. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It sounds like pointing you to WP:SNOW was redundant, then... —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Very good, that. ;-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Line article

Hi David. Can I prevail on you to take a position on the question I raised just now concerning the second sentence of the article on lines at the bottom of that article's talk page? If you agree with Tango I won't argue the point further. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

(PS. You didn't reply to my reply to your latest contribution to my talk page. Did you see it?)

Thanks, I did see it, I just didn't have a concrete contribution to add. For what it's worth, due to its algorithmic applications, I think the Birkhoff representation for finite distributive lattices is important in itself and not just as a stepping point to categorified infinite versions, but I'm not at all sure that contradicts your position and I'm also not sure how it affects the way the article should be organized. Will go look at the line issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Glenn McGee

Wow, woke up this morning to a Whole Different Article! One IP maps to Florida, the other to New Jersey, apart from that, I would have said that McGee is at it himself again. It's obviously a rather bad article now and I am sorely tempted to just reverse wholesale to yesterday's version. That might start an edit war, however. Any ideas? By the way, I'm hurt that on the talkpage they only include you as the person to charge with abuse, I'm at least as evil as you are! :-) --Crusio (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice the way the IP's refer to each other by first name in the edit summaries? AfD didn't work the last time someone got frustrated with the COI in this article. I suppose one possibility would be to take it to an RfC... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the two IPs were clearly working in tandem, they must have been on the phone or chat or something like that. I am not familiar with RfC and rather swamped at the moment. How do I go about that or is it something that would be easy to do for you? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually familiar with that process myself. I suppose I could look it up sometime later when I have time... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the instructions ([[[edit]Wikipedia:Requests for comment]]) and perhaps RfC is not the way to go, because I don't really see how consensus could be obtained with McGee and these two IPs (assuming that neither of them is McGee himself again). Would it perhaps be better to post this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? --Crusio (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That could at least get some more eyes on the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made a post. --Crusio (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR Request

Hi David, I saw you're listed at Category:Wikipedians who have access to JSTOR; does this mean you can provide a full article from JSTOR, or just with bits of information taken from an article? I'm working on expanding National Agricultural Library, and the only information on the history of the library that I can find is on JSTOR, but unfortunately I don't have access to it, and the nearest library in my area that has it is about 2.5 hours away. Thanks! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The JSTOR terms and conditions allow me to share their papers with individuals for non-commercial use (2.1e), but not to make them more widely available. So if you want to use Wikipedia email to send me your real email address, I can send the paper as a pdf attachment to that address; I think that would be the easiest way to get it to you consistently with those conditions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

		Cookies!
		Please enjoy these Oreos as my thanks for sending the article. You saved me a 5-hour car drive! SheepNotGoats (Talk) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, cookies. You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete

Could you perhaps take a look and this article and see if you can add some more background information to it regarding the history of the theorem, its generalizations and applications? It is clear that many AfD participants found the heavy emphasis on the proof in the initial version of the article objectionable. While I disagree with them and think that having the proof in the article is actually valuable, it would help to expand the background section. I have already added some information and a number of references to the lede section myself, but this technical complexity stuff is rather far from my interests and is much closer to your area of expertise. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, Laudak's edit-warring has led to the article being protected (in, of course, the wrong version); I think it would be an abuse of my admin power to unilaterally make changes at this point.

Thanks for your good works

The tweaks, trims and clarifications you make to articles are a great improvement. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

John Renton

Good job of making a silk purse out of that sow's ear. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, it was in pretty bad shape when I started, wasn't it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar worthy. Well done -- Samir 06:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

More thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Algebraic analysis

I wanted to bring this article I found on new page patrol to your attention. It's author is appears to be a new user. It's outside of my area of expertise, I didn't get much past fractions. :) Happy Holidays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks legit to me — the book review linked from the article is to a real book published by the AMS — and it's categorized in a way that will cause it to show up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity where other members of the project will see it. So I think there's no major cause for concern. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out. I was kind of wondering whehter it was being used to promote a particular author's books. But as long as it looks okay, I'm happy. :) Subsequent edits seem to suggest the author was the founder of this area of study, so maybe that's true. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My other thought was that a math contributor is always welcome, so I wanted to tip you off to the contributor as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a new article you might enjoy: Tea Leaf Paradox. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Keyi's edits at P. M. Pu

I find the current series of edits disruptive, please see my comments at WPM. Katzmik (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Wanted to thank you for the useful tips and informative comments in your edit summaries. They are appreciated. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 18:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)