Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Linear probing 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 Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you've put into this review! Though I'm a pretty experienced editor (~29k edits over 11+ years), I have not participated in a GA review before, and haven't read the (no doubt extensive) documentation on the process yet.
I'd just like your advice on where best to discuss this article at this point. I assume that I should be contributing to the regular Talk page? with the GA1 reserved for reviewers?
The gist of my comment is that I find that this article has many flaws, and I'm surprised anyone thinks it's a "good article" according to the Good Article Criteria. In particular, besides the points you've mentioned, the writing is unclear and wordy (fails 1a) in many places, and it often veers not just into unnecessary detail, but even adjacent topics (fails 3b), primarily by confusing the binary search algorithm with the general topic of search algorithms and data structures. Well, enough for now -- where should is it best to talk about things like this? --Macrakis (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Book embedding 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 Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
how its citing the opinions of MRA's from an MRA website against the rules. its valid criticism. issue my links like to the 1993 paper where she said the quoted text i added in my criticism section. its valid criticism of a statement she made on the subject being addressed
how its citing the opinions of MRA's from an MRA website against the rules. its valid criticism. issue my links like to the 1993 paper where she said the quoted text i added in my criticism section. its valid criticism of a statement she made on the subject being addressed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_P._Koss&type=revision&diff=713600956&oldid=713599850
As a "woman mathematician" I believe the term is out of date and potentially offensive. "Woman" should not clarify or qualify "mathematician" in any way.
EEng 04:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Linear probing you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Linear probing for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
About your summary on 251: "...long bulleted lists of unsourced properties ...", and your summary "Undo addition of boring and unsourced properties and deprosification" on 252 which left me perplex:
Now, out of respect for your work in other pages, which I find great, I do not want to start an edit war. But I would appreciate if you could undo your reverts. Thanks. Dhrm77 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Professor David Eppstein. I am watching closely the article about her. Regarding the edit summary "P.S. request Andriy Bondarenko, winner of Vasil A. Popov Prize in Approximation Theory (there is article in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Popov)" [1], I think that anastasiya is not Andarenko nor know him, but wanted to request the creation of the article about him (and did it in a very weird way, haha). About the "Serhiivna" vs "Sergeevna", I don't know, but I got the impression that the Ukrainians prefer the spelling "Serhiivna", and the Russians prefer "Sergeevna". I think that maybe in the English Wikipedia we should prefer the one that is close to how it is pronounced, so that English speakers will pronounce it closely to how it is actually done. Unfortunately, I don't know Ukrainian or Russian to know how it is. :( Best regards, 189.6.158.111 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. It is taking so long for someone to close the discussion. :(
Many thanks for clarifying this. I wondered how to do it correctly. I will try to fix the ones I changed.--Toploftical (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
For your rigourous, WP:VERIFY expectations at Ogi Ogus. I found plagiarism and other deep problems there, from one particular editor (…123, see Talk there), and gave the article as much time as I could, before tagging and departing. The tags, though seemingly over-abundant, correlate with the depth of the issues I unearthed in about an hour of time (including the copy-and-paste material from that editor). My view, the article needs a top to bottom scholarly review, checking sources against content—the DOB, for goodness sake, was not in the source cited!—as well as a thorough copyedit. And all of the apparently hyped claims made for the importance of his ideas need review against scholarly as opposed to popular press sources. For you, or others, to carry on. Cheers. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Andrew M. Gleason 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 MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to be the only one moving and deleting nonsense. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued work, and let me know if I can do anything. Don't know if I mentioned that I was in touch with "Mrs." Gleason a few years ago and she asked me to pass on her thanks. EEng 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Andrew M. Gleason 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:Andrew M. Gleason for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Andrew M. Gleason you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Andrew M. Gleason for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
On 15 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Linear probing, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Knuth's analysis of the linear probing strategy for resolving collisions in hash tables has been called "a landmark in the analysis of algorithms"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Linear probing. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Linear probing), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your personal attack in the Academics Notability Talk...it appears you've been active on here a long time so should know better...it's awkward too as I go to your "user page" and immediately see that you have a personal stake in the discussion in that you have a personal Wikipedia article along the lines being discussed...and now that you've behaved inappropriately there it kind of discredits any contributions by you in that thread.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks "content not contributor" 68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Book embedding you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Book embedding for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cryptic C62 -- Cryptic C62 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for asking for your help regarding a subject not related to the English Wikipedia, but to the Portuguese Wikipedia. By the rules of the English Wikipedia, would pt:Lista de municípios do Brasil por altitude (if translated to English) be accepted or would it be deleted? I don't know how to defend it on pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Lista de municípios do Brasil por altitude. I don't even know the rules there (there are so many), so I thought of creating one on the English Wikipedia if it gets deleted there (if the rules here allow the existence of such lists). I don't know, but I think that they may be different from the ones from the Portuguese Wikipedia... 189.6.213.242 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
on reaching 100K edits. Impressive.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Curve-shortening flow 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 Mark viking -- Mark viking (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The article Curve-shortening flow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Curve-shortening flow for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mark viking -- Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi David,
Congratulations on getting Curve-shortening flow to Good Article status! I've been informally following the development of the article for months and it has been instructive and inspiring to watch. While they were outside the purview of the GA review, I also appreciated the new articles you created to support this one. Well done. --Mark viking (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there! You and I disagree, but that doesn't mean we should carry our our disagreement at a personal level. You have chosen to call my point of view (twice) in edits as 'wikilawyering'. That's defined at WP:WL as:
It also says there that "The word "Wikilawyering" typically has negative connotations...those utilizing the term should take care that it can be backed up and isn't frivolous."
It further says: "Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere. Therefore, any accusation of wikilawyering should include a brief explanation justifying use of the term."
I would be grateful therefore if you could provide such an explanation in the light of the guidelines set out at WP:WL. Or you may care on reconsideration to withdraw the use of the term. In any case I refer you to the principle of WP:AGF.
With best regards, ----Smerus (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rule 184 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 Chalst -- Chalst (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If you like you can add this template to your page.
Buster Seven Talk 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
North America1000 08:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
On 29 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meigu Guan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the name of the Chinese postman problem honors Chinese mathematician Meigu Guan, who first formulated it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meigu Guan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Meigu Guan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Vitalik Buterin —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean here? As far as I know, "minimal" is the adjective ("the smallest"), whereas "minimum" is the noun ("the smallest amount"). So that "minimal enclosing ball" is "the smallest enclosing ball". Should the "minimum enclosing ball" in that article mean something different? And if yes, why? (A "minimum-enclosing ball" would mean a "ball enclosing the minimum", which might make sense in optimization problems but apparently not in this context.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Is that version some big specific problems? And at kakutani's theorem,please prove that source is false.--Takahiro4 --Takahiro4 (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There is the answer about thurston's controvirsial.Ahlfors measure conjecture, Density theorem for Kleinian groups ,Ending lamination theorem,Tameness theorem, Marden's conjecture, these are all thurston questions.It is said that thurston finish "foliated structure".Thurston considered that mathematicians returned and connected categories of some mathematics by these questions --Takahiro4 (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you undid my previous edits. No source was added because I'm the source, first person narrative. He was my cousin. My grandfather was born in Poland, his first cousin. The whole family came over together. The source that says they were from Belarus is wrong. If I can find it documented in second person narrative, I'll add it. Trust me, the family is from Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.203.43 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This site is kept by a family member in Israel that's done all of our genealogy: https://www.geni.com/people/Albert-Patinkin/6000000003954142969 You'll notice that he's mentioned in the section where it says children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.203.43 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The information about Eotvos lorand mathematical contest was originally from peter frankl.And I got it,your misunderstanding was from[lorand uninversity].You thought that this university was founded by eotvos lorand in 1635.--Takahiro4 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
the acceptance of civil rights and religious freedom in the Hungarian Parliament. The Hungarian Mathematical and Physical Society decided,# I called this "produce",and although I think that I couldn't use "found".But even in the case of "found",especially I don't feel strange.Your thought is a bit wrong that eotvos roland math compe is not important by the reason of no wiki article. --Takahiro4 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, David!
Since you're fairly active both in "pure" graph theory and in related theory for graph algorithms, I'm sure that you know about Stanisław Radziszowski's Dynamic survey of small Ramsey numbers (in the EJC); and I find it highly probable that you know him (at least from conferences, if you have not cooperated with him in research). Now, this ds1 (in its older versions) is old (and, compared with you, so am both I and Stanisław). I do not know how interested you are in Ramsey theory; and I do not know if you've studied ds1. However, if you did, you may have noted that Stanisław has a rather broad overview of the field; quite apart from his own contributions, both old and more recent. (You have it here.)
The ds1 does not define all its concepts in detail. Stanisław takes for granted that its readers are into standard graph terminology. In particular, when he states that
(ds1 p. 5, (g)), he does not define cyclic graph; he takes for granted that any qualified reader knows that they are exactly the graphs WP defines as circulant graph.
I think that is wrong; and I'm also not sure that "Cycle (or circular)" isn't a misprint for "Cycle (or circulant)". In the paragraph about these graphs, he refers to some articles by Harborth and Krause, who I think uses the term "circulant graph". However, Stanisław himself has called them "cycle graph" in research articles, too.
I find it rather self-evident that our cyclic graph dab should include also the sense Radziszowski takes for granted all qualified graph theoreticians should understand. Since Flosfa (talk · contribs) found out that MathWorld uses "cyclic graph" in the sense "not acyclic graph" (i.e., "non-forest"), this should also be given. (As you can see, Flosfa recently linked from Cycle graph (disambiguation) to the cyclic graph dab, seemingly without noticing your reversal. Except, that that dab page is a redir to Cyclic (mathematics), and that the latter is declared to be "a list, not a dab" by JHunterJ (talk · contribs). Thus, it is all a bit confused.) JoergenB (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You removed a spurious "sel" from Vi Hart's "other names", and wondered where it came from. Oddly enough, the history shows it came from you, at 19:01, 28 August 2015. You were changing a "themself" to "themselves", and must have accidentally typed part of the new word in the wrong place :-) Darrah (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi David, I have to admit a lack of familiarity with the processes of Wikipedia, so my apologies if I messed up on protocol. A few months ago, I was reviewing the Travelling Salesman Problem and noticed, within it, a section about a variant of the problem called The Generalized Traveling Salesman Problem (which was the focus of my dissertation in 1987). The section indicated that some researchers had found a transformation of the GTSP into a standard TSP and cited a 2002 conference proceeding. Unfortunately, the authors of that paper did not do a thorough literature review and, if they had, they would have realized the same transformation (actually a better, more general one) had been published in 1993 by Charles Noon (me) and James Bean (my thesis advisor) in the journal INFOR. I made edits to the page to correct the attribution and then I later saw the edits were reversed by you. I'm curious as to why and, also, what we need to do to correct the page. - Thanks, Chuck Noon ([email protected]). The GTSP transformation cite is given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_TSP_problem Cnoonphd (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi David Eppstein Here is the information they wanted deleted from the Sorcha Faal article as dichotomies such as this are never allowed to survive. Maybe you can put it back in, but if you do, watch how fast it will disappear:
In 2016, Russian newspaper Trud claimed that Faal was affiliated with foreign intelligence services:
Experts noted that the Sorcha Faal's website is a "flush tank", through which one of the groups of American military and political elite merges information uncomfortable for their opponents. "Of course, for the project are special services, but who exactly—to understand yet difficult: British MI6, Mossad, CIA, DIA (Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense) and the American National Security Agency, for example," said professor of the Diplomatic Academy of Russia Igor Panarin. "Of course, it is an element of information warfare, but within the American elite".[1]
In 2016, Russian channel REN TV alleged, without offering proof, that Sorcha Faal was a portal for unnamed intelligence services.[2]
Concerns that Faal was in some way affiliated with the U.S. government were first raised in 2009 by the conservative political advocacy organization Americans for Limited Government when they posted on their website[3] a Freedom of Information Act reply from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that stated 10 Faal articles had been used by the DHS in compiling their controversial report titled Right-wing Extremism Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.[4]
In 2016, a Faal report alleging that two U.S. military helicopters were shot down by Turkey over Syria was widely reported by mainstream Russia media sources including Свободная пресса—Википедия[5] and Trud[6] with the Sputnik news agency (in their German language edition) reporting that the United States Department of Defense denied this happened with Pentagon spokeswoman Michelle Baldanza stating "This is an absolute lie"[7] and Trud still commenting on it a subsequent article about Turkey.[8]
Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
References
{{cite news}}
|first=
Hello! Your submission of Curve-shortening flow at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
On 19 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Curve-shortening flow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that curve-shortening causes every smooth simple closed curve to become convex and then near-circular before it shrinks to a point? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curve-shortening flow. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Curve-shortening flow), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I took a whack at your comments at the GAN on Ann Bowling, pinging you that I did so (and thank you for reviewing). Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Ah, and adding a link to the review Talk:Ann_T._Bowling/GA1. Thanks Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Directed acyclic graph 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree we have a problem here. There was an enigmatic reference to "personal problems", which was tagged "confusing". Takahiro4 first removed the tag, with an edit comment of unclear meaning mentioning "WW2". After a bit of to and fro, he removed this enigmatic bit, and the tag, which strikes me as quite reasonable, so there really is no cause for a tag. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm pleased to pass this article in my GA review: congratulations, you obviously put in substantial work into the piece. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Rule 184 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rule 184 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chalst -- Chalst (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Dear Dr. David Epstein,
When you think the theorem is nice please put in English wiki
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/234053/daos-theorem-on-six-circumcenters-associated-with-a-cyclic-hexagon
https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BB%8Bnh_l%C3%BD_%C4%90%C3%A0o_v%E1%BB%81_s%C3%A1u_t%C3%A2m_%C4%91%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Dng_tr%C3%B2n
Thank to You very much,
Dao Thanh Oai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.189.226.37 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
With respect to ADTs the set of real numbers seemed a bit obscure as an initial example definition. A stack definition appeared later but I attempted to give a simpler initial ADT generalisation based around the principal of stack of plates, stack of bricks, stack of things. The Stack is the ADT, the type of what is stacked is the abstract part. The ADT relating directly to the abstract organisation. ADTs usually confuse and a simple generalisation seemed beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.78.91 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the Partition refinement! If you are familiar with matter, at least one demonstration would help non-technical readers to understand topic.
Based on page, it can be used with graphs. Graphs examples are intuitive without graph terminology. Could you please add "Example" section to the Partition refinement?
Some other data structures were explained step-by-step. I think one example wouldn't harm an article. Ushkin N (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a current review of John von Neumann taking place for GA under Military History. Could I ask you to glance at it? Should the article be reviewed at this level without any math type editors being involved? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you started a GAN review of Ann T. Bowling and I've answered all your questions (with a few clarification questions of my own). Want to pop over there and continue the review? Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The article Directed acyclic graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Directed acyclic graph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Widest path problem 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 Oshwah -- Oshwah (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks David for being so on top of it.
> (Undo good faith edits — the usual version of Boruvka adds an edge for all components at once, and by doing so reduces the #components by a factor of two in linear time. If you only do one component, the time analysis doesn't work.)
I am kind of new to wikipedia. A student gave me this algorithm in a project. I did not like it. And then found it here. Yes, sorry I did think I should change the time complexity too. Is your doubling version just historical? I was thinking if you handled "Each Component", then actually you could get one component in one step. ei each node is initially a component, so each is handled, so each is connected to the next in a line. I was not sure why the precondition restricted to distinct weights. And the code checking each edge for each node seemed more cumbersome than needed. I also like the fact that Kruskal or Prim are all specializations of the more general algorithm the way I wrote it. But then as you said, it is no longer Boruvka's version. I however and not attached to and am happy to follow your judgement. All the best Jeff Edmonds
I had four ~, but it said "unsigned". Let me try again to sign. Sorry for my fumblings JeffAEdmonds (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 14:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffAEdmonds (talk • contribs)
Hi David Eppstein, The content & tenor of your comment[3] at WP:RSN is indicative of a failure to assume good faith, and borders on personal attack. It would be appreciated if you would take a more collegial & collaborative approach as we attempt to work toward a consensus. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
On 5 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bilinski dodecahedron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Stanko Bilinski's 1960 rediscovery of the Bilinski dodecahedron corrected a 75-year-old omission from the list of convex polyhedra with congruent rhombic faces? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bilinski dodecahedron. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bilinski dodecahedron), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
On 8 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Directed acyclic graph, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because of pedigree collapse, some family trees are better modeled mathematically as directed acyclic graphs than as trees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Directed acyclic graph. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Directed acyclic graph), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
ChanakaW (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)My Article on Seetha I. Wickremasinghe was deleted because of not followed Wikipedia guidelines.So After that I followed the standards and recreated the Article Again.But I have to include the some previous details.Please help me to do that needfully.Many Thanks .....
Just letting you know that I think all your comments at Ann T. Bowling have been addressed, I didn't see anything you wanted me to do, so inquiring if it's ready to pass GAN or did I miss one of your comments? Montanabw(talk) 06:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
REF: regarding your Amanita ovoidea editing.
May i ask on what basis the reference below with regards to potential toxicity of Amanita ovoidea has been removed from the page?
"However, recent chemical analyses performed on A. ovoidea, have reported the presence of polyphenols and polysaccharides, together with sterol and triterpene glycosides, as well as low levels of allenic norleucine, the same potentially deadly nephrotoxin present in A. proxima. The authors of this study advise against the consumption of this mushroom"
(Biagi, M., Martelli, L., Perini, C., Di Lella, L., Miraldi, E. (2014). Investigations into Amanita ovoidea (Bull.) Link.: Edible or Poisonous? Natural Resources, 2014, 5, 225-232. Published Online DOI: 10.4236/nr.2014.56021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.115.89 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear David,
I am not familiar with the contact and peer-reviewing process of the aforementioned journal. However i have read the article, and in my opinion it is a solid contribution providing alarming evidence regarding the potential toxicity of a fungus that is sometimes consumed, and occasionally even sold in markets. The fact that reported poisonings implicating this fungus have been independently reported in the past by other sources, makes this a rather delicate health issue.
In my opinion the paper should be judged on merit rather than dismissed (or censored) based on where it was published. If we take that path, surely half of the references provided in Wikipedia articles (which cite self-published books, non-indexed, non-peer-reviewed journals, or even internet sources), will also need to be dismissed based on the same logic of being "unreliable". If the article is problematic and the conclusions flawed, then surely it won't be long before it is challenged in a follow-up publication, which of course can also be cited and set the record straight. In this case, there are obvious health implications, because the findings of this study directly contradict the findings of a previous study rendering the fungus "safe to eat". Are you willing to take the personal responsibility for censoring information on a potential health hazard implicating a food source, simply because it was published in the wrong journal? With all due respect, i think the potential health risk here far outweighs any concerns regarding the profit policy of the journal the study was published in.
Michael Loizides — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.251.115.89 (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
No need to say "thank you for adding missing templates", I know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
|class=
hi. I don't like genuine redundancy either, but frankly you're just plain wrong with your comparisons of "wet water" and other things to the phrase "perfectly spherical". Astronomers and degreed people themselves have used that phrase. People who would never say the phrase "wet water". Not all spheres are necessarily perfect, is the point. What's the problem here?? And as I said, other WP articles have used that phrasing, as well as outside Reliable Sources. From another Wikipedia article that I had nothing to do with, these exact words:
"The Earth is not perfectly spherical but an oblate spheroid, so the length of a minute of latitude increases by 1% from the equator to the poles. Using the WGS84 ellipsoid, the commonly accepted Earth model for many purposes today, one minute of latitude at the WGS84 equator is 6,046 feet and at the poles is 6,107.5 feet. The average is about 6,076 feet (about 1,852 metres or 1.15 statute miles)."
And from an article on physics.stackexchange.com, these words:
"By this measure, the Sun is a near-perfect sphere with an oblateness estimated at about 9 millionths, which means that its polar diameter differs from its equatorial diameter by only 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)."
Are these scientists being "redundantly redundant" as you put it? Or do you see them saying "wet water"? (And that's just some examples; there are a lot more.) You accused me of "edit-warring" for simply not putting up with rude unwarranted reverts, for excuses that simply don't hold up, and keeping to 3RR. (One of my comments on the page was just an edit comment with no real edit...so I kept right at 3RR, and won't cross that.) YOU are edit-warring by imposing and removing a valid mod (provably valid mod), and clarity, that is NOT really "redundant"...as I kind of just proved with just a sample of places that rightly use the phrase that you have an issue against. The edit and qualifier was for clarity and is correct and used phrasing, and does not qualify for abrupt removal on the grounds of "redundant". That might be true if all "spheres" were considered always "perfect". Apparently not all of them are. Redzemp (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I have no doubt that, in some communities, the "skyline problem" might refer to the problem of decomposing something into border-aligned rectangles. However, in the database community, it's instead how the "maxima of a point set problem" is known, even if it's a terrible and misleading name:
and many more. I think it would be a nice idea to provide that alternative name because it would help someone looking for new developments on this problem. akbg (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
the refs were about the point of 'sometimes called'...unwarranted revert... For suppression and "I don't like" reasons....won't work, Dave....... We discussed this the other day, but obviously you won't even compromise coolly with no collaboration. Just with the attitude of "the words 'perfect sphere' will not exist in this article, in any way form or fashion, period". You have this big hang-up for some reason against the words "perfect sphere" even though they are sourced. And instead of admitting that you personally don't like the phrase, you and Strebe come up with all these front excuses and cop-out reasons to remove a valid and sourced point... And this was MARK's wording and suggestion (that even whittled down to instead of "commonly" called to "sometimes" called), but that's still not good enough for people who don't understand what the word "wiki" means, and that you don't own any article, no matter what your background is in "mathematics". Or how many Admins get fooled and suckered by this nonsense. I only go by references and true CONSENSUS...(even if the consensus is provably wrong, I still abide by it ultimately.) You and Strebe and Anita versus me and Mark and others don't a consensus make. Reverted, restored, and regards. Redzemp (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The article Widest path problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Widest path problem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Oshwah -- Oshwah (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm curious, why did you revert this edit? IceKarmaॐ 18:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Over to you. [4]. Montanabw(talk) 04:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I was about to get to it after dinner. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering if you would be interested in reviewing another of mine and Worm That Turned articles? Sabrina Sidney was the subject of a pretty horrendous experiment but its a fascinating story. We are hoping to get this one to featured and would really appreciate your thorough review approach to put us in the best position to get it to featured standard in the future. Don't worry if you can't - I know there are 101 other things for Wikipedians to do! ツStacey (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Women in Halls of Fame worldwide online edit-a-thon
#wikiwomeninred
--Ipigott (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC) (To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201424.pdf
http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart3.html#X3649
http://www.journal-1.eu/2016-2/Ngo-Quang-Duong-Dao-theorem-pp.40-47.pdf
http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml
http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201429.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.189.226.37 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I followed here from the Jonathan Wells RFC and I don't believe we interacted before. I am reaching out to you for an opinion, as you appear to be experienced with the topics of sourcing, neutrality and extraordinary claims, and have experience with GA articles and general Wikipedia policies.
It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist World War II knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.
I would welcome a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would also welcome any feedback you'd be willing to share. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Sorry about that! Topic is far outside my familiarity, so thanks for taking a look. Didn't mean to cause any trouble. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Todorcevic is not a recently deceased person. I've fully supported my changes with a citation to a reliable source. Please, go to Todorcevic:talk page to address your changes of his biography and justified them there. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)