User talk:David Eppstein/2020d

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.

Automated Errors

I didn’t receive your earlier messages because you didn’t ping me. I do get your point, I only began optimizing AWB & editing from a desktop today for the first time in 4 years so I do appreciate your frustration. If I had received your first message I wouldn’t have edited it twice. Celestina007 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Prime number: "also"

The edit summary of the change which you undid said:

→‎introduction: "is a product (...)" -> "is also the product of ..."

Your undo summary said:

why? also after what previous representation of 4 as a product? we haven't mentioned the product 1x4 so why also??

I added "also" because the preceding sentence, which uses 5 as its example, demonstrates "1x5" and "5x1" as representations which one must consider. Thus, the representations "1x4" and "4x1" are implied in the sentence which discusses 4.

I re-changed it, in a different way, hopefully more palatable to you. Take a look.
— Black Walnut ^talk 00:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC).

I still think you're making things unnecessarily complicated for no reason. There was no need for "also" because we never talked about the 1x4 product. There is no need to write that 4 "can be written as" a certain product when it's simpler to say it "is" that product. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw a problem: I believe that this paragraph is confusing to the layperson, because it relies on a specialist's shorthand to convey the subject matter. I tried to improve it, slightly. My two attempts may have been poor. However, the failings which you state are present in the previous sentence, which you apparently consider fine.

You are fast to hit "undo". You have not solicited my perspective, except rhetorically. I'll move on. I wish you well.
— Black Walnut ^talk 02:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC).

Calling infoboxes "stupid" and for "people who can't read"

I can understand the removal of the underdeveloped infobox for the currently underdeveloped article Bombieri–Lang conjecture, but infoboxes are not only for "people who can't read" nor are they solely for topics that can be entirely reduced to a few bullet points. Infoboxes are useful to a variety of readers (including casual readers and those with accessibility needs) for quick information-at-a-glance. Infoboxes summarize key points, but that doesn't mean that they can only be included if they are able to summarize all key points.

We can disagree on where to include infoboxes, but there's no need to insult readers who prefer infoboxes as being unable to read nor to call the infoboxes "stupid". We're all just trying to making the encyclopedia better for everyone. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes are usually inane, summarizing the wrong information in big bold bullet points and drawing attention away from the more careful and nuanced presentation of the actual important points of the topic that should be given in the lead sentence. In mathematics they can be acceptable for examples of mathematical objects (like {{Infobox polyhedron}}), but they work very badly for mathematical statements and results and should be removed on sight with a sufficiently strong edit summary so that whoever tried to add it gets the message and stops adding them to articles. Apparently, contrary to what you say, my edit summary was not strong enough because you did not get the message. See WP:DISINFOBOX and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 24#Template:Infobox mathematical statement. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s your opinion, with which some editors agree and with which some editors disagree. However, insulting readers is not acceptable.

Similarly, there is consensus in some article to use the infobox like Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement. You can't just edit war the entire infobox out against the RfC consensus because you don't like it or because some details of its implementation should be changed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not insulting readers. I am insulting non-readers and the editors who think that should be the target audience. And as my edit summary argued, it is not just "some details" that were wrong in the infobox; it was every single point outside of the image captiion (which my edit did not change). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

And insulting editors is WP:CIVIL and productive? The community consensus is for inclusion, you can't revert it out just because you believe the consensus is wrong. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The result of the RFC cannot and should not be interpreted as saying that there is consensus for having falsehoods in the infobox. And with the falsehoods removed, there is no infobox left. I can't help but notice that you have not even tried to reformulate the claims that were in the infobox in a way that is not false and misleading; you are instead arguing only that they should be put back in their previous false state. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

These are falsehoods in your personal interpretation. The RfC had a proposed implementation of the infobox that is very similar to the version you removed. You also made the same points in that RfC that resulted in inclusion of the infobox. For the reformulation of the infobox at FLT, see the option I gave at Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Falsehoods in infobox.

We don't need to be discussing FLT in parallel in two locations now. My purpose of opening this thread on your user talk page was to point out that insulting people has no place even if we disagree. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Insulting people who can't read by calling them..."people who can't read"? I think you're making a pretty big mountain out of not very much incivility. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You said that infoboxes are for "people who can't read", which could be interpreted as you are calling people who use infoboxes illiterate (particularly since there are obviously plenty of literate people who find infoboxes useful). You then clarified that this was not the case, but you then said yourself that I am insulting non-readers and the editors who think that should be the target audience. There's no place here for insulting anyone, whether they are readers, editors, infobox users, or whatever. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

And continuing to dig deeper. Your misinterpretations of what I actually said are also not my problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You literally said you were insulting non-readers and the editors who think that should be the target audience.

Anyways, the point is made. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ideal polyhedron

On 5 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ideal polyhedron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that unlike their Euclidean equivalents, the ideal regular tetrahedron, octahedron, and dodecahedron can all tile hyperbolic space (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ideal polyhedron. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ideal polyhedron), 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, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Logarithm

There are also some other integral representations of the logarithm that are useful in some situations:

${\displaystyle \ln(x)=-\lim _{\epsilon \to 0}\int _{\epsilon }^{\infty }{\frac {dt}{t}}\left(e^{-xt}-e^{-t}\right)}$ ${\displaystyle \ln(x)=\int _{0}^{\infty }\,{\frac {dt}{t}}\,\left[\cos(t)-\cos(xt)\right]}$

The first identity can be verified by showing that it has the same value at x = 1, and the same derivative. The second identity can be proven by writing ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{t}}=\int _{0}^{\infty }\,dq\,e^{-qt}}$

and then inserting the Laplace transform of cos(xt) (and cos(t)).

Hi, this part is unsourced within a FA article. I'm translating it to a different language and currently looking for its source. Can you please help me find the source of the given information? 14.169.224.164 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, I found what I was looking for. Thank you anyway. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#Logarithm you can add the source to the article if you want. 2402:800:4315:2C28:24D7:48D:5EFC:674C (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Pamela Jumper-Thurman

Hi @David Eppstein: I am reviewing this article, Pamela Jumper-Thurman. I'm a bit unsure about it and wondering if you could take a look. I couldn't identify a single reference that would definitely confirm she was notable. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're trying to confirm academic notability by looking for independent published references about the subject, you're doing it wrong. That's not really how WP:PROF works. We need published reliable sources to verify the content of the article, but independence of the sources is less critical (at least, as long as they're covering non-controversial factual material about the subject rather than evaluations of her work) because we're not using that for notability. Instead, the first thing to look at should be her citation record, where Google Scholar lists four publications with over 100 citations each [1], giving a pretty strong case for WP:PROF#C1. (An academic in a book-based field could instead be notable through multiple book reviews of multiple authored books, but with only a single edited volume listed that's not going to work for Jumper-Therman). All that said, your "couldn't identify a single reference" perplexes me; the very first footnote in the article is to an in-depth article about her as a "featured psychologist" by the American Psychological Association, surely an independent and reliable source for this topic if you really are trying to measure notability using WP:GNG instead of using WP:PROF. To put it another way: an academic can be notable through the kind of scholarly accomplishments measured through WP:PROF, or through the kind of publicity and fame measured through WP:GNG, but those are separate criteria. If the sources are in-depth, reliable, and independent, enough to pass WP:GNG, then the subject can be notable regardless of whether those sources say anything relevant to WP:PROF. And symmetrically, if the subject passes any of the criteria of WP:PROF, then they are notable regardless of whether in-depth independent sources exist, let alone whether those sources describe accomplishments that would pass WP:PROF.—David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Thanks. I think I was particularly knackered, when I left it with you. I couldn't focus on the article but the protestant work ethic was still functioning. Looking at it now, it is plain as day that she is notable. Excellent breakdown of the criteria. I will keep it in mind. scope_creep^Talk 00:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Floyd's triangle

Hello, David Eppstein. You have new messages at Floyd's triangle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

@Cmglee: we have no article titled "Floyd's triangle's talk page". Perhaps you meant Talk:Floyd's triangle? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Degeneracy

@David Eppstein: Yes, I should have written "line segment" rather than "line".

Most of the examples of degeneracy have no sources listed. Do you plan to remove all those examples from the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_(mathematics)

John Link (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Antiprism article infobox

Hi!

I edited the Antiprism article, mostly its infobox: i tried to make everything in this infobox coherent with the symmetry groups claimed in it;

& so, in the Properties field, i wrote: "convex or possibly star".

But perhaps infoboxes should mention only convex polyhedra...?

If the answer is yes, please don't revert all my Antiprism article edits: please just let me know, & i will adapt this infobox soon.

In advance, thank you very much for your answer!

RavBol (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is only valid for uniform antiprisms. Much of the information it contains is wrong or inapplicable in the more general case. And the title of the infobox has the word "uniform" in it, clarifying that it is only intended to be valid for uniform antiprisms. Uniform antiprisms are always convex. Star antiprisms are a different case, not part of the uniform case. Trying to make the infobox handle more general cases is hopeless, so better not to even try. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I trust you, & i will adapt this infobox... but i'm a bit lost:

i don't understand why the star antiprisms that are vertex-transitive & that have regular polygon faces are not uniform;

is it just by definition, please?

(Some other polyhedra are non-convex but are uniform, & some of them are even regular.)

RavBol (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It is just a matter of naming. "Antiprism" could be anything with two parallel congruent faces connected by a ring of alternating triangles. "Uniform antiprism" refers to the convex ones where the two faces are coaxial regular polygons. "Star antiprism" or "uniform star antiprism" refers to a kind of generalized self-crossing polyhedron, again with coaxial regular polygons. The infobox is obviously not intended to even try to work for the general case (if it did, all that stuff about Coxeter notation and Schläfli symbols would be out of place, because they don't work for the general case) and is labeled as being about uniform antiprisms so it should only be about uniform antiprisms. Or, to put it in terms of general principles: if you find yourself having to try to work out the mathematics yourself in order to fill out an infobox field, rather than just copying information from one of the sources of the article, you're probably stretching both the infobox and the article too far in the direction of original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for your answer (although i must confess that i don't really understand why you talk so much about uniformity, & so little about convexity).

Well, i removed "or possibly star" from the Properties field of the infobox; now, is it OK, please?

RavBol (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

If you haven't guessed by now, you're not really asking the right person for whether an infobox is good, because I don't generally like infoboxes. But I think it's ok, and I do appreciate your efforts at working through the mess that is our polyhedron articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your latest answer.

Sorry, but i slightly edited this article again... & also its infobox:

(i made "Example hexagonal antiprism" visible),

i replaced "uniform i.e. semiregular"

with "uniform in the sense of semiregular": i find this clearer.

I hope you agree; otherwise, please don't revert "all" my changes:

please just fix what needs to be fixed. :-)

RavBol (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Hi!

(I edited the Trapezohedron article's infobox in the same way; i hope you think it's OK, too.)

The following image:

"File:Apeirogonal_deltahedron.svg":

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apeirogonal_deltahedron.svg

should be renamed into:

"File:Apeirogonal_deltohedron.svg".

But on my mobile, the "Move" button doesn't appear (& i don't know whether this renaming would automatically also rename all corresponding link names in all pages using this file);

& i'm sure you know what to do about this issue. :-)

RavBol (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Delta to delto??? Really? I doubt that's correct. Delta is a valid prefix in the construction of mathematical terms, referring to the Greek letter Delta or its triangular shape. "Delto" just looks like a mistake. Do you have a published source for this terminology? In any case, the file is on Wikimedia commons, not Wikipedia, and moving it requires following the procedures for commons, which are different than the procedures on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"File:Apeirogonal_deltahedron.svg"

could also be renamed into:

"File:Apeirogonal_trapezohedron.svg",

if this is more appropriate.

(I had suggested "deltohedron" because that's the quickest renaming from "deltahedron".)

Anyway, of course i had verified terminologies before asking you for renaming:

https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Deltahedron.html , &: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Trapezohedron.html . :-)

RavBol (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the image is on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. You will have to go to Commons to request that it be renamed. I cannot do it here (or there). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, i got it; however, in order to enforce my request to Wikimedia Commons, could i add that you agree with it:

renaming:

"File:Apeirogonal_deltahedron.svg"

into:

"File:Apeirogonal_trapezohedron.svg",

please?

RavBol (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is this request? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't made this request yet: i was waiting for your answer (& for my family to let me use our PC for some quiet time...).

But to write the point of my request, i will copy-paste the following short 4 lines:

renaming:

"File:Apeirogonal_deltahedron.svg"

into:

"File:Apeirogonal_trapezohedron.svg".

RavBol (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't support a request until it actually is a request, in the proper procedure for making requests for moves on Commons (whatever that procedure happens to be). If you don't want to make it, or can't figure out how to make it, then I suggest asking there for the procedure. But copying lines to my talk page here, which is not on Commons, and that do not even contain a rationale for the change, does not seem like a constructive step towards getting what you want accomplished. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thomas A Russo page

Hi! You had deleted a page title Thomas A. Russo on April 7th 2018. I wanted to know why, and if you would be able to put it back up? He is certainly a notable businessman - he was #2 at Lehman then moved to AIG where he was responsible for paying back the government $22.7 billion over what was owed after the crisis. He was also noted in America's Who's Who multiple times, which I think is a better indication of notability since it comes from within the business community than saying that only press releases are cited (which is untrue). He is also in the Futures Hall of Fame, which I think is another indication from within the business community that he is a notable figure.

I think your deletion was incorrect - please let me know if you disagree and would like to discuss further. Thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_A._Russo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdr90 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not delete it; User:Sandstein did. If you think Sandstein incorrectly judged the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas A. Russo, or if there is some new evidence of notability that was unavailable in 2018 or unknown to the discussion then, the venue for asking to overturn the decision is WP:DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed

Hi there, when you get chance, please could you take a look at Devin George Edward Walker and it's talk page? I'm not convinced there is sufficient evidence to show notability based on what looks like postdoc positions/awards, and not many first or last author papers on Google Scholar. But I was a bit hesitant to simply take to AFD. Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent sociology article edit reversions

Hi David Eppstein; I see you've reverted a few of the changes I made to various sociologist Wiki articles. A few of the reversions you made are confusing to me. It looks like in addition to changing the stub categorization I assigned these articles, you're reverting and removing the short article descriptions? Why? --Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you removed valid article categories and replaced them by stub categories. Stub categories should never be used directly; you should use the stub templates instead. And article categories should never be replaced by stub categories; the stub categories are only a supplement to article categories, not a replacement for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay! That makes sense to me. Can you explain why you're deleting the short article descriptions? That doesn't have anything to do with the stub article categorizations. --Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I see that in your most recent reversion on the Benjamin Nelson page, you've actually deleted my use of the stub template, even though you're saying here I should use it. Can you please explain this? You're providing contradictory information. --Joeyvandernaald (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the edits in which you removed the correct article categories and replaced them by stub categories. That may have had the side effect of also reverting other changes you made at the same time. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the erroneous changes you made! Your initial deletion of the stub template and the short article descriptions weren't the product of my reverting your changes; you deleted those in your initial attempts at reversion. I appreciate the insights about appropriate use of stub categorization, but this ham-fisted approach you took just results in sloppy editing. Please also be mindful of how you use language in the comments to other editors in your changes; use of all caps and statements like "Learn to use stub tags correctly, or don't use them" are not very civil. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read my previous response correctly. Go back and try again. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh you're right! I see you actually didn't fix your erroneous deletions. You've got be more careful when you make these edits otherwise you can end up removing things that aren't actually problematic. Joeyvandernaald (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, not make problematic edits that warrant undoing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Street Musicians at the Door

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Street Musicians at the Door - Jacob Octhtervelt (edit).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust ^The Homunculus 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Beata Nowok for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beata Nowok, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beata Nowok until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181 Online events: New: Textile arts | Stage+Screen+Radio+Podcast Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Nomination of Lauren Chilvers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lauren Chilvers 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Chilvers 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. Spiderone 08:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Ashlee Faul for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashlee Faul 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Faul 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. Spiderone 08:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you + invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Thank you for your contributions to articles related to women in sports!

We'd like to invite you to learn more about Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in sports. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Participants page or visit one of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport/Task forces for specific sports. Thanks!

Hmlarson (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Joyce E Salisbury

Just from idle curiosity, why are you so keen on this lady? Achar Sva (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you mistake my level of interest; If I were more keen I would have expanded her article Joyce E. Salisbury rather than merely promoting it from draft space and adding some links to it. But she is clearly notable by our standards for academics so we should have an article for her. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Morse (mathematician)

Hi David. There is an economist named Jennifer Morse who already has a page. But the mathematician who was just elected and AMS Fellow does not have a page. Are you going to create one? Mvitulli (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I can do this, probably later today. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I will create a page for Bianca Viray who was also elected a Fellow. Mvitulli (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft of page for Viray is in my sandbox. Mvitulli (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that while I was offline you went ahead and published it. Looks good. One question I had: Filipino Cultural Association, a dubiously-notable student group at the University of Maryland, says someone with Viray's name was president of the association at the time she would have been a senior at Maryland. But there are no good sources in that article and I was unable to find them elsewhere. Do you have some way of sourcing this? Also I found the 2010 dissertation of Cole Trapnell at Maryland in 2010 thanking his wife Bianca Viray, and other circumstantial evidence suggests that it is the same Bianca Viray. Since Trapnell also has an article, maybe (with better sourcing) we should mention the marriage in both articles? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I can check this out directly with Bianca. She gave a Distinguised Lecture for the UO Student Chapter a few years ago and I interacted with her. I don't like mentioning marriages unless the person agrees that she wants that on her page. Thanks for adding the photo of Viray. Are Oberwolfach photos without copyright? Mvitulli (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I just added some sources. I don't think the mathematician was involved with the Filipino Cultural Association at U Maryland. See this FB post. https://www.facebook.com/FilipinoInstituteBahrain/photos/we-are-delighted-to-wish-you-a-happy-birthday-ms-bianca-viray-may-your-birthday-/1552426264909971/ Photo doesn't look like the mathematician.Mvitulli (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Viray just got back to me. She was born in the Phillipines and immigrated to the US when she was 5. So she probably was the president of the Filipion Cultural Association. I asked her about this. She is okay mentioning that she was born in the Phillipines. I'm checking that she is a US citizen. She doesn't want her page linked to Cole Trapnell's page. Mvitulli (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oberwolfach photos are copyrighted, but (for some but not all of them, including this one) have an open license allowing them to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia. I agree with not mentioning marriages unless it is public (for instance mentioned in her publications). Also the Facebook post you mention is by the Filipino Institute of Bahrain from this year, not from the Filipino Cultural Association of the University of Maryland of 2004–2005, so I don't think it sheds much light on her possible connection to the association. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

PS there is some old coverage of a high school student athlete named Bianca Viray from Keyport High School, New Jersey, around 1998–2001: field hockey, 1998 ("Veterans should make Keyport Competitive", p. 42); field hockey (?), 2001; track and field, 2001; track and field, 2001. Same person? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I wrote Bianca but didn't ask about the Filipino Cultural Association. I saw the NJ sports piece but didn't think high school sports was important for her Wikipedia page. If you think either of these items are important I can ask her. 23:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The FCA might highlight some of her cultural background, but it's currently too poorly sourced to add. Similarly, the high school sports might give more of an idea where she grew up, but doesn't appear to be especially significant beyond that. If it led to an athletic scholarship, then that might be worth saying, but there's no evidence of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Katerina Bexis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katerina Bexis 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katerina Bexis 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. Spiderone 10:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Breach of WP:ADMINCOND

I’d probably close the AFD as keep per the new review sources you have added to the article but please be more mindful of your tone. I’ve encountered you thrice & thrice you have been condescending, I can & would understand regular editors being mean but for you as an “admin” to constantly be rude with impunity is wrong & should be enough grounds for a de-sysop. Per WP:ADMINCOND you as an “admin” ought to be civil. Please do better next time. Celestina007 (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Says the editor who falsely accused me of "blatantly lying". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You, who initiated the snide remarks via comments such as this? & said this horrible thing to me? can complain because I called your comment a “blatant lie” I don’t have a problem with apologizing for calling your comment a blatant lie, in-fact, I apologize for that, & you in turn should also for your condescending remarks. As an “Admin” It’s either you follow the WP:ADMINCOND you pledged to or cease to be one. Either you learn not be condescending in your remarks as an “Admin” that you are in your dialogues with other editors or like already said above cease to be one. I stress the Admin part because it wouldn’t have mattered much if it were a non admin because they did not pledge the WP:ADMINCOND, you did & that you think your condescending remarks towards me are in anyway justifiable is indicative that you may need to retire the mop. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop making a fool of yourself. --JBL (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Here we are talking about Incivility & you just imply that I’m making a fool of myself, if that’s not being uncivil, what would you classify that as? You people should really do better. Celestina007 (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no implication here, it is a straightforward factual statement: you are making a fool of yourself, and you should stop. --JBL (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, when you fully grasp WP:NPA please do let me know. Celestina007 (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Celestina007: You should try to find a neutral 3rd party to review your conversation on that AFD. I just looked at it, and did not see Eppstein's comments as being overly uncivil. Yours were on the verge of WP:battleground. See Law of holes. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, my use of the word "lazy", at least, may have been a bit too snarky a response to a request I saw as unnecessary. It's probably good to remember that there have been a lot of reasons for a lot of us to be more than usually on edge lately, and to allow for a greater amount of leeway because of that. Which is to say that if Celestina doesn't continue escalating this exchange I'd be happy to consider it closed and ask talk-page stalkers to please try not to say anything more that could be considered a provocation. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Laura Grigori

Hi — when you reverted my edits on Laura Grigori, you said that "self-published sources are ok for non-controversial details". I've had yet another look at that source, and I still can't see any mention there of her being part-Romanian. Can you help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the first section of that page is "I am a French-Romanian applied mathematician and computer scientist." Does that help? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay... FWIW, that specific phrase wasn't there when I checked it earlier; I can only see it now, having refreshed my browser cache. It's interesting that an IP editor edits the article and has access to the source, but fine, whatever. Many thanks for your help, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Alice Connor Artistic Director at The Theatre Shed

Isn't that a kind of academic role? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Is it the sort of position that requires an advanced degree and where evaluation of someone's merits is based on scholarly output rather than performance? In any case the article seems to be almost entirely focused on her acting roles, which are definitely not academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, fair enough. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Allen Tannenbaum

This is awkward placing this notice on the talk page of an experienced administrator but please stop edit-warring on this article. I think it was wise to move this discussion to the BLP noticeboard and involve other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I was already stopping before stepping over 3RR. I had no intention of undoing a fourth time. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability of an academic?

Hi David, hope all is well. I'm trying to determine the notability of Horace Campbell, (who I have heard speak once), but am having trouble cutting through all the cruft. I know it's not necessarily in your area of expertise, but I was wondering if you might be able to help me out here. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Visiting Distinguished Professor" is an indication of his level of seniority, but not I think enough for WP:PROF#C5, and similarly at Syracuse his position is just full professor rather than a named or distinguished professor. He appears to work in a book based field (as opposed to a journal based field) so if his citation counts were low, it wouldn't necessarily mean much for WP:PROF#C1, but in fact I think they're high enough for him to be notable that way (searching Google Scholar for author:horace-campbell finds six publications with over 100 citations each, quite high for the humanities).

Where I was expecting to see stronger evidence for notability was in reviews for his books. On jstor.org, doing an advanced search for reviews containing "Horace Campbell" as a keyword finds 55 results, some of which are reviews by Campbell or briefly mentioning Campbell, but many of which appear to be reviews of his books. I would generally regard having two authored (not edited) books with two published reviews each to be the bare minimum for WP:AUTHOR, and he appears to be well beyond that threshold.

In summary: I think he passes both WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. It's possible that he also passes WP:PROF#C7 or WP:GNG for his media appearances. Large sections of the article are badly sourced or unsourced, and that needs fixing (or removal of that material if no sources can be found) but that's not really a notability issue. The book reviews, at least, provide plenty of material on his scholarship that can be used to provide content for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

thank you very much for that in-depth analysis! Stay safe and all the best — Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

KMP edit

You reverted my edit.

You're wrong. Regexp matching is linear in every requirement and has always been linear and you're adding trash to wikipedia that makes it unusable to conduct basic research by forcibly maintaining bad information in it.

Further adding: If you can't find a citation to show that regexp matching isn't linear, you're violating wikipedia policy of blah blah blah, because the given citation does not establish that. I'm not gonna cite chapter and verse, but seriously. 216.106.94.95 (talk)

The matching part is linear once you have a DFA. But tell me by what algorithm you intend to convert the input pattern string into a DFA to allow it to be matched quickly. Even the most obvious data representation of the DFA, using a direct-mapped array indexed by alphabet symbols for the transition for each (state,input symbol) pair, is nonlinear unless you make an additional assumption that the alphabet size is a fixed constant. You can get around that by hashing, but rigorous analysis of pseudorandom hashing methods also came later, and also you still have to construct the thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Euclidean distance

		The Mathematics Barnstar
		For your extensive work on Euclidean distance. The article is unrecognisable now compared to before your rewrite, and is a pleasure to read. It keeps to the point, is accessible to various backgrounds, and flows well. Great work! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Saw it on the main page this morning. Congrats on the GA! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Template editor permission

Can you give me Template Editor? Now and then I run into protected edit notices, noticeboard headers, and so on e.g. right now I can't fix the red link at [2]. EEng 23:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh, technically the permission requires a six-month-clean block log... More importantly, WP:TPEGRANT asks for successful requests for changes to protected templates. Have you done that? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The above items are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities. But like I said, I've no interest in real templates, just edit notices and such. And surely you of all people aren't going to pull the block log thing on me, are you? EEng 07:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, that was why I said "more importantly". Anyway, fine, I've given you that bit. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Song of the South

David Eppstein, can I please know why they continue to revert my edits on Song of the South article even if I try to be as the most reductive as possible and even explaining what I change before publishing? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.36.181 (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not merely that you are being an apologist for racism. It is also that the huge quotes you are inserting are too long to count as fair use, and therefore must be considered a copyright violation. And even without the racism and the copyright violation, the blog post you have also been trying to insert as a reference to the article does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for what can be used as a reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

But I used only official statements and facts, then I used only link sources, and using the "apologist" thing for something that is still disputed and even defended by many members of black American community it's not exactly appropriate (considering also that I actually wrote official statements from actual and also intelligent "apologists"), especially considering that the film wasn't intended at all with racist intent (because must be intended) but a tribute to African American folklore with a beautiful anti-racism message in it (yes, I saw the film) victim of detractors and fake-fans with a social-political narrative and agenda and guided by feelings who even admitted they haven't saw the film, only repeating what other detractors already said, in more than some cases even disproved or refuted, and the statements and facts I put are proof of that, so this is not an excuse to esclude them. It's not even fair and just towards the great James Baskett. In a controversy can't be only negative things, and if you noticed carefully, in this controvery there are even things that don't make sense. I ask again the persmission to re-edit what I already edited, please, maybe removing only what violates copyright. Thank you.

P.S. All these things have been said and wrote also by Floyd Norman, James Baskett, Hattie McDaniel, Clarence Page and the Uncle Remus Museum and all of it can be seen also on Disney Wiki in a very detailed way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.36.181 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I have a response, please? Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.36.181 (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This is Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I’ve sent it to SPI where presumably the IP will be blocked eventually, but it’s also worth considering page protection here (and what to do when they branch out to other similar articles). —JBL (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not this guy, but it's probably one of our community of Disney Wiki who wants like me all the information we got on Song of the South also here on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.34.94.5 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Your "undo" of Hypatia and the Heathens"

Yes, as per your comment, there is more than one blog post for it. Here are others, besides the one already cited. You might take a moment to use the internet before undoing someone's work:

https://www.caveat.nyc/hypatia/home

https://www.hypatiamusical.com/

https://bestnewyorkcomedy.com/tag/hypatia-and-the-heathens-a-musical-bacchanalia/

https://soundcloud.com/hypatiamusical

https://nickgray.net/hypatia/

https://www.theatermania.com/shows/new-york-city-theater/off-broadway/hypatia-and-the-heathens-a-musical-bacchanalia_329838

https://www.broadwayworld.com/off-off-broadway/article/New-Musical-HYPATIA-AND-THE-HEATHENS-Tell-The-True-Story-Of-The-Last-Librarian-Of-The-Library-Of-Alexandria-20190627

https://www.todaytix.com/x/nyc/shows/15412-hypatia-and-the-heathens

https://www.onstageblog.com/reviews/2019/8/5/review-hypatia-and-the-heathens-a-new-musical-in-concert-at-the-caveat

http://gomag.com/event/hypatia-and-the-heathens-a-musical-bacchanalia/

Professorita (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that these simply establish the existence of this show. What we need is sources explaining how the show adds to the reader's understanding of Hypatia, or of her place in popular perception. I'll just add that the article needs a machete taken to it because there's way, WAY too much nonnotable inpopcult stuff. EEng 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a point to some of the inpopcult stuff: that much of what appears about her even in supposedly serious academic biographies is derived from made-up stories that have no historical basis, to the point where she has become more of a mythic figure than a historical one, reflective of whatever moral someone wants to inject into the story. But perhaps that point could be made with less cruft surrounding it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. EEng 22:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, if a novel that is not available in libraries about Hypatia being a time traveler is valid for the "in popular culture section," as is an aside of a popular TV series where Hypatia is doped out on too much heaven milkshake endorphins, then a piece of theater which, if you actually read the above articles or listened to the music, makes a comparison between Hypatia's world and the one we're currently living in, certainly adds to the readers understanding of Hypatia and the time in which she lived. Professorita (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That sentence triggered my vertigo. EEng 08:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:WAX. I am entirely willing to believe that some of the other material should be removed as well. But at least it has better sources; you still haven't provided anything better than a blog as a source. (Your links above, or at least as many of them as I was willing to click on before gagging at the promotionalism, are not better.) Also, given that attempting to promote this play is the only thing you have been doing on Wikipedia, I suspect it may well be past time for you to declare a conflict of interest, as Wikipedia editors are required by policy to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

... if they have a conflict of interest, that is. EEng 08:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just some people need everything spelled out for them. EEng 22:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Good point. My statement above that Wikipedia policy requires declarations of conflicts of interest was inaccurate. It only requires declarations of conflicts of interest that you actually have. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally WorldCat tells me that the time-traveling-Hypatia novel is available in libraries. Roughly 200 of them including half a dozen within a reasonable distance of me. But more important, it has reliably published reviews both mainstream (Kirkus and Publishers Weekly) and within its genre (Strange Horizons and SF Signal), making it independently notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm kind of suspicious of unconscious sexism behind the idea that a notable woman of the past could not have achieved that notability without a helping hand from the future, but I haven't read the piece and that's all irrelevant to whether it is notable enough to mention. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your reasons for removing the reference: “unexplained restoration of content that had been removed for valid reasons,” your reason being that it wasn’t “noteworthy enough to mention here? Is there more than a single blog source for it?” -You were then provided with, on your page, ten different links to articles and reviews for this addition. You then criticized some of the writing in the reviews of the show (which is pompous at worst and inconsequential at best), and called it promotional spam. The links include two reviews of the show (one of which is tepid), four mentions of the show on reputable New York theater websites, one to the show’s homepage, one to the original venue’s homepage, and one to the album. Furthermore it is the first original musical to come out of Caveat, a nightlife center for academics in NYC. There is no reason for it not to be on wikipedia. It is a one-sentence entry into the record of Hypatia as a character in works of art. 2604:2000:1102:18C:703D:4D77:3FBF:765D (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

See my first post to this thread. EEng 00:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Your first comment says that these links simply establish the show’s existence, rather than explaining “how the show adds to the reader’s understanding of Hypatia or of her place in popular perception.” My argument is that they do. Hy Bender’s article says that it “eerily echoes what’s happening right now under the Trump administration.” Onstageblog says, “The Setting? No, not America in 2019, but the Library of Alexandria…” and “can inform our present on multiple hot button issues from religion to politics to women’s rights.” Both reviews point out that the show is a lens through which to view our current situation, as history repeats itself.

I’m not clear if you’re referring to the original post itself, or these sources, but the sources do tell us what you’re asking, and the songs which are available online provide further insight. If your problem is the way that text is addition was worded, then please explain. If you think the writers of the articles aren’t well-written as you gripe above, that’s still not a reason to censor a one line entry of an artwork into the historical living record that is wikipedia. There are fewer available resources on E Bowers’ stage adaptation of Kingsley’s book, but that doesn’t preclude it from being mentioned here.Professorita (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be Hy Bender, "ghostwriter and author who's published over 20 books, and has helped hundreds of writers improve their books or screenplays" [3] and authority on Neoplatonism? EEng 02:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eeng, I fail to see the relevance of your rhetorical question. He is a writer, yes. He doesn't claim to be an expert on Neoplatonism, nor does he have to be to be able to relate it to our current climate, review a show, or to contribute to the conversation. He isn't talking about Neoplatonism, and nor are many of the words listed. Many of the sources listed on this page are not written by experts on Neoplatonism. You complained about a lack of sources that talked about "how the show adds to the reader's understanding of Hypatia, or of her place in popular perception." I provided you with several, specifically about how the show uses Hypatia's time period as a lens into our own. So again, what is your point? Professorita (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I give up. EEng 03:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A display of exasperation fueled by a sense of superiority. You didn't relate to anything I said, but that's fine. Does you giving up mean you'll stop taking down my factual entry about a show that exists? Professorita (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No. And if you keep edit-warring, making personal attacks like this, violating Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources for all content, and editing promotionally, you may be in danger of losing your editing privileges. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Associative magic square

David, what do you make of this article? This is an earlier and, in my opinion, more encyclopedic version. Honestly, I can't make heads or tails of the article and it certainly needs a rewrite; unfortunately User:JohnBlackburne doesn't seem to be around anymore. As pretty and as colorful as it is, it does not look very much like an encyclopedic article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't scroll down past the first page it looks ok, but then the giant original-research images and poor-quality references kind of spoil the effect. A quick Google Scholar search for possible better references to salvage the article (discounting predatory journals, low-quality conferences, web sites, unpublished arxiv preprints, etc) found only [4] and [5]. That might be enough to stub down the article to something salvageable that only repeats the definition and gives a couple of small examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried to figure out what the "Physical Properties" section was trying to say by looking up the Physical Review Letters paper it cites [6], but there's only a passing mention of magic squares at the very end, and a pointer to a personal web site. Comparing user and author names suggests there's a bit of self-promotion going on. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, done. It looks like User:JohnBlackburne tried to similarly take a machete to this version from 2014, cutting it down to this, only to have the same editor who added the sea-turtle and sand-dune photos the previous time come back and add more cruft in 2019–2020. Probably worth watchlisting to prevent a repeat. There are several subtopics within mathematics that can be very frustrating to edit because of stubborn single-purpose editors with odd ideas about what should go into a Wikipedia article, and I suspect that magic squares may be one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit conflicts and reduplication.

That’s the second time today something like that happened, although the earlier one was a little less...extensive. Thanks for nuking it, but it does look like some kind of systemic problem. Qwirkle (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Collatz conjecture

Dear David, a few minutes ago I commented on the recent talk about the Collatz conjecture. Although I am grateful for your feedback, I would recommend that you check your references before rejecting a paper. Beall's List has been closed for years. As you can see from the Wiki article, it is now being maintained by an "anonymous postdoctoral European researcher". What does that mean? This is not the kind of source I would cite, to be honest.

I hold you in high esteem as a mathematician and hope we can have a further discussion based on scientific arguments. --C4ristian (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Beall's List is now labelled with the tag unreliable source in your post. Please do not remove it without a sound argumentation. If you consider the source to be reliable, you should provide answers to the following questions:

• Who is the "anonymous postdoctoral European researcher" that maintains the site?
• Who does he or she work for?
• Does he or she have a conflict of interest?
• Is he or she working for another journal and aims to discredit competitors?

Without answering these questions I would suggest that you do not refer to this or a similar source anymore.

--C4ristian (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC from 11/22/2020

I told you I was done, why would you continue to attack me? I told you it was a general policy question applying to more than one article. I added that template as I was under the impression that AMS didn't count and there are no reliable independent sources discussing him (and I wasn't aware of any of the very strange Google Scholar rules). And I did not re-add it when it was removed! I apologize for not having gone enough AfD experience before I started working on articles (we might want to say that is a requirement somewhere). But I am still confused by all your arguments because WP:SNG specifically says "Note, however, that in cases where GNG has not been met and a subject's claim to meeting an SNG is weak or subjective, the article may still be deleted or merged: a presumption is neither a guarantee that sources can be found nor a mandate for a separate page." I am still learning and none of this helped, it was just a belittling session on my incompetence. Thanks! Message received! I'm an incompetent editor. I will avoid all mathematics and BLP articles related to mathematicians in the future so as to not allow my incompetence to be disruptive. I just want this to stop, so I am asking, please. A discussion on the question itself is sufficient. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I withdrew the request, I very much hope that appeases you and we can be done with this once and for all. I again apologize for asking a question without having more experience, though I am upset that you implied that I was acting in bad faith when I had a question that I couldn't tell had ever been formally answered before and was wondering if we could get consensus on it either way. I was polite on that page and I do not believe I ever did anything wrong, other than waste some of your time, which I couldn't regret more. Footlessmouse (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Footlessmouse (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm striking all this out, I have been told many times to not feed the trolls, but I just can't help it. I will point out, though, that insisting my whole point was to denigrate that article (in order to insinuate I was acting in bad faith), after you acknowledged that I also wanted to ask about APS is certainly not a sign of competence or literacy. Footlessmouse (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Footlessmouse (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Footlessmouse: Perhaps you need to be reminded that calling someone a troll and questioning both their competence and literacy is a serious violation of WP:CIVIL. And your claim that I was trying to paint you as acting in bad faith is both untrue and itself a violation of WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I should not have implied those things, I am sorry. Though I probably misread it, I was thinking you were claiming I wasn't acting in good faith when you said that I brought the question to RfC after being "questioned" on it by the anon users, but I told them I would do that to get wider input and then waited over a week before doing so; I was very offended by this perceived insinuation. I had general questions that I wanted yes or no answers to, and so I couldn't understand what the problem with that was, so I became exceedingly mad about the whole thing. I have already initiated a nice long, possibly permanent, vacation from Wiki. I will spend some time thinking about how I express myself on here and, if I ever come back, I will try to take a little more time and add more detail and make my positions more clear, which I apparently do not do so well right now. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted image on Ulam Spiral

Hi David

just wondering why you considered my illustration to be original research. There's an existing sentence at the end of the Construction section referring to the fact that an Ulam spiral centred on 41 shows such a diagonal. My reading of the OR definition is that it explicitly excludes easily verifiable facts. What could I do to show that this version of the spiral is a genuine, uncontestable fact?

thanks & best regards Tom

Tom, I don't have a copy of Martin Gardner's article from Scientific American on hand, but I believe that the spiral centered at 41 was shown in that article. There are probably other sources as well. I should also mention that the spiral centered at 41 has been in the Wikipedia article before, even in the recent past. At one point, a particular user took ownership of the image, expanding it until it filled roughly half the article and even adding wikilinks in every cell of the diagram. Eventually I concluded that it was taking up too much real estate and deleted it. My personal opinion is that it's fine to restore a (modest) version of the image. Will Orrick (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I probably made a mistake calling this image original research. Still, that article is something of a magnet for original research and most of the content of the "variants" section appears to be unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification please...

About six months ago an administrator threatened to indefinitely block me, without warning, if I pasted a url into talk space if the RS behind that url made a passing mention to the name of the ex-wife of a certain controversial police offer.

My recollection is that you were that administrator. Help me out please. Were you that administrator?

I have a google news alert on that couple. It advised me that the judge overseeing their divorce, rejected the officer's offer of a divorce settlement, on the grounds it showed a "badge of fraud".

Normally if I were to make a brief quote from an RS in a discussion I would link to the URL for that RS. I am going to make a brief quote here, without linking to the RS, due to that threat.

According to the RS judge Juanita Freeman wrote that, under the proposed divorce agreement, the cop's ex-wife "would have received all the equity in their two homes, all the money in their bank and investment accounts and all the money from [his] pension and retirement accounts."

Multiple RS quoted legal experts in their explanation to readers that the judge's concern. If I understood them properly they were explaining that the judge was concerned it looked like the couple were colluding to use a divorce settlement to hide assets from a civil suit from his victim's heirs.

This new development was covered by multiple RS. I think it merits coverage in the article about the cop... except that those RS all mention the cop's ex-wife, by name.

If you are standing by your threat to indefinitely block individuals for using RS that mention her name in the body of the RS, then covering that would trigger that indefinite block, correct? Clarification. Am I the only person you are prepared to sanction for using urls to RS that make mention of his ex-wife' name? Or are you going to apply this stricture to everyone? Geo Swan (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I remember being involved in this but I don't remember threatening anyone with an instablock over it. That's not something I usually do, but I suppose I might have done. I usually either go through lower-level block warnings first for people who I think have a chance of paying attention to the warnings and stopping what they're doing, or just block rather than threaten if not. If I remember correctly there were other admins paying attention who might have been more likely to talk about blocks. Certainly if I were to sanction people over this it would be applied evenly, but "evenly" would probably mean warning people new to the dispute before blocking them, while assuming that people who have already been warned long ago and keep coming back and back to the same issue despite being told to drop it and move on to something more constructive can remember that they were warned. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Possibly useful: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive313#Filter_1068. EEng 14:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Really, how many readers do you think know how to pronounce "sexagenary"? It's perfectly reasonable to add pronunciations to obscure words or jargon, just as we link to obscure words and jargon. Trying to restrict readership to people who already know the topic is not helpful. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lead sentence. It needs a published source, but even with one it should at most be a footnote there rather than part of the sentence itself. Do you like to read sentences like "Kwamikagami (one of many people who edit Wikipedia pseudonymously, with interests including the pronounciation of polysyllabic technical terms, and whose pseudonym is sometimes shortened to kwami) disputed the removal of its pronounciation from the sexegenary article"? Do you think the long parenthetical clause makes the sentence easy to understand? Do you think making it even longer and more off-topic would be an improvement? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kwamikagami on this one, so I have restored the pronunciation additions. My rationale: the pronunciation is not terribly obvious; the pronunciations are literally one word of IPA, which can be skipped over if anyone can't read it; and it's totally normal encyclopaedic style to give parenthetical clauses for alternative names (geographical case in point from Britannica), which is what really is most of the long parenthetical clause anyway. I would not object to a footnote, though, as long as the information is there in some form. Double sharp (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

the pronunciations are literally one word of IPA – The problem with that reasoning being, of course, that no one can make heads nor tails out of IPA. EEng 01:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Huh. Seems it's probably an across-the-pond difference according to our article on the IPA: British dictionaries (including OED) very often show pronunciation using IPA. Therefore I suspect you'll find a bunch of British-English-using editors like me thinking of IPA as no big deal and American-English-using editors who find it incomprehensible. Thanks for reminding me of this particular difference, I had not thought of it. I see where you're coming from then. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

FOOTNOTE. Footnotes can be read if the reader prefers but do not (making the lead sentence violate WP:TECHNICAL by being awkwardly phrased and hard to read and far too long before you get to the more important to most readers description of what the article is about) get in the way of other readers' comprehension. Your edits are in violation of MOS:FIRST Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current footnote solution. Double sharp (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Ben Model

Greetings. Could I see the two deleted versions of this article at Draft:Ben Model? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There are actually six deleted versions from two deletions. Anyway they're now at Draft:Ben Model as you requested. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks very much. I appreciate the restorations. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fractional calculus

Is some mention of Tom Osler due at the fractional calculus article? User:Skymath1 added a line, but it wasn't backed by a source and had NPOV issues, so I trimmed it. It sounds like you found some sources that might support a mention. I glanced at a couple of the sources under Further Reading in the current article: Brief history of fractional calculus says "More papers were published by Erdélyi, Higgins, Mikolás, AI-Bassam, Osler and others in the 1960's and early 1970's." On development of fractional calculus during the last fifty years doesn't mention him, however. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Looking at his top-cited publications, and discounting the SIAM Review and College Math J review articles, what stands out among the rest are his generalizations of the Leibniz integral rule to fractional calculus. So rather than just saying something generic about "more papers were published", that contribution appears to be something more specific we could talk about, but only with sources focusing on it. I'm not sure the sources I found for the Osler article really have that focus. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183 Online events: New: Women who died in 2020 | Philanthropists Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Other ways to participate: Help us plan future events Join the conversations on our talkpage Become a member Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Ram L. Ray

I am new to Wikipedia, and got the article Ram Ray (associate professor) as my first editing job to contribute when I opened Wikipedia. It appears though it has been nominated for deletion. Just out of curiosity, do you think that maybe if the obvious editing problems were fixed, the article should stay? Just wondering, though it does also have somewhat obvious notability issues...--45.132.73.16 (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

No. I think the misbehavior surrounding this case (first the blatant sockpuppetry, and now your disclosure that this was undeclared paid editing) have poisoned the well for a long time to come. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a misconception. I didn't mean job like paid job, I meant it said "Help Improve Wikipedia", to contribute on the top of the Wikipedia main page. Let me go ahead and clarify that I have no connection with the subject whatsoever, and Wikipedia merely recommended this article to me when I clicked the edit button. --45.132.73.16 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not change already-replied-to comments, as you did in this edit, changing "my first job" to "my first editing task to contribute when I opened Wikipedia". It falsifies the record of conversation, making it appear that the other people in the discussion are replying to different information than what they actually replied to. Also your denials are not very plausible. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well, I don't really have any benefit in this, so if you don't believe me, then ok, but I just wanted to help. Nonetheless, sorry, and have a good day.--45.132.73.16 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, I just wanted to throw out there that I am not even connected to the subject, have never edited, or anything. If I was paid, by IP or userID would have shown in the sockpuppetry incident with PremierePrush, or in the user log of edits. If you still don't think that's not reasonable, then I don't know what to tell you.--45.132.73.16 (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you're awfully familiar with the intricacies of the Checkuser tool for someone who just made their first contributions to Wikipedia. Is said familiarity also why you're editing from a webhost, or is that an unrelated matter? Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Ouch Spiderone 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, David Eppstein. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. BunbunYU (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rationalisation (mathematics)

Please, have a look at this article and its recent history. IMO an administrator action is needed. If I have violated the 3rr rule, it was because the IP edits were blatantly wrong, and edit summaries seemed the best way for communicate in this particular case. In fact this allowed me to remark and correct a longstanding error in the lead of the article, which can explain the IP's error.

I request your action, because an administrator who is not a mathematician could have difficulties for distinguishing this case of blatantly wrong edits from an usual content dispute. Thanks in advance for your action. D.Lazard (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I autoprotected the article for a week. If the IP returns we can extend it for longer. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The IP is there again. D.Lazard (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, protected longer. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. D.Lazard (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Partition Function Recurrence

Could you explain a bit why you removed the recurrence relation that was added on Partition (number theory): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Partition_function_%28number_theory%29&type=revision&diff=992341119&oldid=992330480. Was it wrong? Unproven? Improperly formatted? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Ritchey (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be based on published reliable sources, and for a topic as heavily researched as the partition function (Google Scholar tells me there are some 384,000 results for that phrase) I think they really should be secondary sources that can attest to the significance of any new claim (so we can know where to prioritize it among those other 384,000 other things we could add to the article) rather than merely being a primary publication of a result that only lets us know that it's true or not but cannot be relied on to tell us accurately how significant it is. Your addition did not actually include any sources at all (it alluded to a primary and somewhat-reliable source, although one of lower quality than a published article, in the edit summary, but did not actually include the source in the material it added). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Aylett

On 6 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Aylett, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that computer science professor Ruth Aylett performed with a robot poet in the Edinburgh Free Fringe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Aylett. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ruth Aylett), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Euclidean distance

The article Euclidean distance 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:Euclidean distance for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elliot321 -- Elliot321 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Qing Nie

Hiya. The external links in Qing Nie are in the references - which are direct links out to the papers rather than citations of them. This triggers the page curation 'spam' filter. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here. Alexandermcnabb, the article had a long and entirely primary-sourced Research section, which seemed to be the main source of the problems you mention. I stubbified the section, and also cleaned up some of the citation and other templates in the rest of the article. The article still isn't in great shape, but it's better. Delurking here because I know David Eppstein is sometimes cautious about editing pages of UC Irvine faculty. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the article about William Chapple; this man is related to a very elementary topic, and yet his contribution is so easily overlooked. I love filling such gaps and unknown unkowns. Tarnoob (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Authors of popular physics books

Hi David, due to your knowledge of academic notability, I was wondering if you could give me advice on two authors that I have recently created books for. The End of the Certain World and Atomic Spy are both written by Nancy Thorndike Greenspan, wife of the deceased child psychologist Stanley Greenspan. She is obviously much more notable as an author than as an academic, but am hoping you have some experience there. Second, Priest of Nature is written by the chair of the science history department at Oxford, Rob Iliffe, who has written two books on Newton and is the head of the online Newton Project hosted by Oxford. I have started a sandbox for Greenspan, but am not at all comfortable with using it as the source used for most of the material doesn't seem reliable to me and I can't find a lot of info. I have no experience creating biographies, so any advice is appreciated, thank you! Footlessmouse (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My general impression is that the author of more than one notable book is likely to be notable (regardless of whether we actually have an article on the books). But of course we need adequate sources for a biography. In the case of Greenspan, https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/greenspan-nancy-thorndike looks better than most of the sources you are currently using, but sources seem sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I have seen the encyclopedia.com page before, but I assumed it wasn't a RS. I will remove the non-independent and primary sources and see if there is enough in book reviews. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of reviews for Iliffe's books at [7], and adequate biographical info at [8]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I will work on them. Footlessmouse (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Arif Ahmed talk page

Hi, I just wanted to check whether we were on the same page about the discussion on the Arif Ahmed (philosopher) talk page. I was quite grateful for your improvements to the article and my comment was targeted at the other user removing them without consensus. I wasn't sure whether you thought my comments had been critical of your edits. Anyway, thanks for making some sane additions to this article. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Laura Garwin

On 13 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Laura Garwin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Laura Garwin, one of the first female Rhodes Scholars, left a career in science to become a full-time trumpeter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Garwin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Laura Garwin), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

LaTeX short formulae

Hello, In the article Reduction (recursion theory) the short designations for sets, etc. are italicized, but are not in LaTeX format. Is the preferred design to leave them how they are, or should I look into converting them into math formulae? Thanks. paraorthomodular (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Basic italic formatting as it already uses is one of the standard acceptable formats, but if you're going to mix it with <math> for some of the formulas, I would prefer for it all to be in <math>, so the formulas look consistent with each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Thanks for the reply. I converted the appropriate formulas to <math>. I am a newbie to the WP math community, so I was wondering if you could help me with something else. The stub Kleene–Rosser paradox is quite vague and looks like it could use some major content addition. It also has a detailed talk page in which it seems the usage of lambda calculus was unclear in a previous version. I was thinking about expanding this stub to clarify it, should I do so? paraorthomodular (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Be bold. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks lol. As a student I'm used to having to ask anyone for most things. paraorthomodular (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, David Eppstein! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Yo Ho Ho

JBL (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

User talk:ThurstonMitchell

I see your warnings. User is in overdrive recategorizing academics, and I'm reverting. Am I helping or harming? The concept of non-diffusing categories is unknown to me, so I'd like your judgment. Would you check my reversions, such as this one?, and briefly let me know soonest? Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The categories affected by your diff are just normal categories, not non-diffusing ones, so it is a different issue, of overcategorization rather than of ghettoization. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Euclidean distance

On 26 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Euclidean distance, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the Euclidean distance and the Pythagorean theorem are both ancient concepts, the Pythagorean formula for distance was not published until 1731? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Euclidean distance. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Euclidean distance), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Season Greetings

@David Eppstein: Seasons Greetings. I send you warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to prosperous New Year! scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

PlanetMath references

Possibly there is some way to (semi?)-automatically update references like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharkovskii%27s_theorem&type=revision&diff=996597236&oldid=994961584

instead of removing them...? --CiaPan (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This is even better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharkovskii%27s_theorem&type=revision&diff=996599378&oldid=994961584

CiaPan (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

They can't be automatically updated because the template parameters don't contain sufficient information to find the new link. And the links are mostly not that helpful anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Euclidean Distance - spaces in <math> formulas

Thank you David for your advice about spaces in <math> formulas, I already learned about it in the hard way.

In fact, while reading the article I just could not see the plus sign in the distance formula I edited. After zooming the page up a little bit it was displayed correctly. This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_distance

Jhrozo (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)