User talk:David Eppstein/2023d

Opaque set changes

Hello, I was wondering why the changes have been made to the opaque set page, and why I have been banned from editing? It seems much of it stems from the linking of a personal GitHub repository. It does indeed do as it says, and if there is an avenue for me to verify this, I think it makes a good addition to the opaque set problem, as it uses a new, quicker algorithm that doesn’t exist elsewhere. Even if I still am not allowed to link or mention it, much of what I said doesn’t hinge on a reference to this algorithm, and seems entirely relevant. Any options for a second look at some of it? Thanks, BagLuke (talk)BagLuke BagLuke (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you have been banned from editing; if you had been, you would not be able to post here. I removed your changes from the opaque set article because they did not appear to be based on published reliable sources. Wikipedia has strict guidelines about original research: everything in a Wikipedia article should be based on a publication elsewhere. Putting something on a github repository does not count as a publication. Additionally, if you are trying to add your own work here, you may wish to review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Sorry for the trouble, I’m new to this and thought that something math or computer based could be verified through its use, benchmarked and/or tested for its accuracy. Is there any way for me as an individual to get this verified? BagLuke (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The way is to get it published somewhere else first, for instance as a research paper in an academic journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Although I assume this won’t lead to the spontaneous legitimacy of my program or anything, would you have the time to check out my method if you take interest in the opaque set problem? BagLuke (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see that some pages have an "external links" section which seems to contain links to unpublished works. Would a section like this be applicable for the opaque set programs? BagLuke (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Calculus

Some user had recently added statement on history section of wikipedia article on calculus.Can you check it whether it is reliable or not. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. But the statement was so vaguely phrased that it removed rather than added information from the more specific details above it in the same paragraph. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Revdel

Do you fancy deleting this edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Women_in_Red&diff=1178142593&oldid=1178099605 thx --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Restoration of changes to Elizabeth Garber

Hi @David Eppstein:, I have restored the changes I made to Elizabeth Garber. All of the information I added was sourced, using an obituary published on the Stony Brook University website (where Garber worked). As is pretty standard, the full name of a subject (including maiden name) and full birth and death dates should typically be featured in the lead. I will also point out that in your edit you also restored the page to the Living People category, whilst retaining a death year in the lead. As per WP:BLP, a death year or date must be adequately sourced. It's also a complete contradiction to hold a page in the Living People category whilst death information is simultaneously listed on the page. I have partially reorganised the category order, as per your suggestion. I would invite you to work with me on the respective talk page if there is further disagreement so we can together find a solution. Thanks. Jkaharper (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Information should be included in the lead only when it plays a significant role in the notability or context of the subject. The birth name does not, because it is not a name that she ever used professionally. The birth year does but the date is not. It is not required, not necessary, and not a good idea to put this information in the lead. Doing this only serves to go on and on about irrelevant things in the first line of the article going on so long that the reader eventually loses interest gets distracted and goes away without finishing the sentence and without learning what the actual point of the article might be. See WP:LEADCLUTTER and put more effort into not being a perpetrator of clutter. As for the categories: your useless and pointless reordering of categories made it impossible for me to discern whether you had made any constructive change to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @David Eppstein:, do you think we can keep it civil as per WP:CIVIL? Comments like "Also fix User:Jkaharper's completely bogus citation conflating her dissertation with a journal paper." and "your useless and pointless reordering" are not polite. We should be working together to improve the article, rather than conducting ourselves in a hostile manner that is not constructive. And whilst we're on that first point... it was not me who added that "bogus citation". I would invite you to look at the edit history again. (On a side note, can you please tag me next time you reply so that I'm aware you have done so?) Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You added it back when you reverted my edits. If you're going to blame me for adding back the living people category, then... —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field

In the section of formal science in the article List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field it is said that madhava of sangramana was considered as a father of classical analysis but most of historians don't accept it. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Brahmagupta matrix

The article of Brahmagupta matrix is so vague that only one reference is citied for this article and it is said that this article was created by the user jagged 85 who was banned for long time misuse of sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

C_4v, a symmetry of order 8

Hello, @David Eppstein. I'm not sure this is the right place to ask the technical of mathematics, especially in geometry on polyhedrons. As far as I'm concerned, a pyramidal symmetry of order 8 in $C_{4v}$ means that it has symmetrical as a solid rotated for every quarter turn of a full angle around the axis of symmetry (that is, $90^{\circ }$, $180^{\circ }$, $270^{\circ }$, and $360^{\circ }$), two vertical planes pass through diagonals of a square base, and two other vertical planes pass the midpoints of two opposite edges of a square base; did I miss something here? I would appreciate your explanation or any correction about this one. Thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I always have to look up the classification of spatial symmetries; I'm not the right person to ask for details of that classification. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I see, then. I will ask on WP:WPM. My sympathies... Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

AMS Notices?

Hi DE,

I was discussing with Mark Wilson the idea of writing an article for the Notices of the AMS about math & Wikipedia. (Mark will be the next editor in chief.) Do you have any interest in collaborating on such an article, possibly with other established math editors? (Or in writing a single-author contribution, either to stand alone or as one of several perspectives.) I think that the exact scope is pretty open-ended, and so it could be framed in various ways depending on what appealed.

All the best, JBL (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I could possibly collaborate on it, at least. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, great. I will let Mark know, and feel out a bit if he has anything more specific than "an article about editing Wikipedia" in mind. I think perhaps it would make sense to collect a slightly larger group of authors; do you have any feelings about that? (Perhaps it would make sense to move further discussions off-wiki? E.g. I would be happy to switch to e-mail.) All the best, JBL (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Christian Hennig

I have modified the article Draft:Christian Hennig according to the suggestions of your comment; in particular, I have shortened the article and substantiated all claims.Dhanyavaada (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

After I have made an effort to consider all the criticisms of your comment and change the article accordingly: Is the article now ok as it is?Dhanyavaada (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Close. The start date of his editorship at Statistica is unsourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Since no reference to the beginning of the editorship can be found, I have changed the text accordingly: "Hennig is currently (2023) editor-in-chief of the journal Statistica ", a statement that is verified by the cited link to the journal.Dhanyavaada (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289 Online events: New: Alphabet run I & J | Geofocus: Indian subcontinent | Women in Politics Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Tip of the month: When translating articles from another language Wikipedia, don't forget to include attribution in your first edit summary. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi

Did I do something to piss you off? Levivich (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Um, responded to an AfD as if it were an exercise in forcing everyone to obey the sacred writ instead of evaluating the effect on the usefulness of the encyclopedia? I am not actually a big fan of a one-size-fits-all interpretation of GNG, and even less of its Biblical literalist acolytes. If that is not you, then maybe you got caught in the cross-fire. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks, I was worried it was something else I'd forgotten or wasn't aware of. Levivich (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Philip R. Cohen

Hi David -- Would you have time to do a sanity check on the above computer scientist? The article is alleged to have been created by a paid editor and is lacking in inline sourcing but a quick GS check suggests the subject is notable. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Now moved to draft: Draft:Philip R. Cohen. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Definitely notable through ACM Fellow and AAAI Fellow, at least. But the cv-like overdetailed and unsourced list of accomplishments, and alleged paid editing, means that I think draftification was probably the right choice. We can have an article on him, but maybe not the article in this state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- with people who have left academia it can be hard to find reliable sources for this kind of material. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Calculus

can you verify the recent edits did in article of calculus Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can verify that recent edits did in article of calculus. I can verify that they made the attribution and sourcing of a quote more specific and accurate. They look like good edits. Stop bothering me with this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

ok Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspicious edit to Nostratic

Does this look highly suspect to you, as well? Or am I just seeing things, at this point. Warrenmck (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear to come from the same place as AB claims to live, at least. The question to me is less where the edits come from and more whether the article is in a state where it still needs significant cleanup. Those banners are not supposed to be a scarlet letter that articles on topics we don't like must wear forever: they should only be used when there is an obvious problem that a good-faith editor could reasonably act on and clean up, removing the need for the banner. In particular the fringe topic banner should only be used on articles that do not make clear the fringe nature of the topic; once that has been made clear, the banner can be removed. To me it looks like the lead does make that clear, but maybe there is problematic material later that I didn't spot. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Remember that AB uses a proxy which randomizes IP addresses, so seeing a single anonymous edit on the article is what raised my eyebrows. Personally I think the article still needs a lot of work (though I'm very open to being wrong) with only the introduction doing its part to not make it as bad as it used to be. There's definitely still some problems to me with the article, particularly in presenting nostraticist arguments in an in-universe way (see the Urheimat and differentiation section), but again, I'm very open to being wrong on that. As far as I read it the article still needs a lot of work making it clear it's more akin to water memory than Altaic. Warrenmck (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Moore graphs

Hi David, I have added two topics to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moore_graph. I would appreciate hearing your opinion before I make any edits. - David David.wood.42 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Re uniqueness: I checked the literature and it appears you are correct: "the" missing Moore graph is not known to be unique, if it exists. Re whether to count $K_{2}$ as a Moore graph: we do list complete graphs in general, but with the wrong girth for $K_{2}$. To me the question of whether to incorporate this graph into the article or whether to tighten the definition to more unambiguously exclude it is one of following what most of the literature does rather than trying to choose a convention ourselves, but I don't have a strong feeling for which way the literature usually makes this choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, McKay is now there and I am pretty sure that he is more familiar with this topic than either of us. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent

someone had recently added some information in the article History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent can you verify it whether it is reliable or not Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Logic

In the history section of the article logic it is given as

Some of the later theories of Nyaya, belonging to the Navya-Nyāya school, resemble modern forms of logic, such as Gottlob Frege's distinction between sense and reference and his definition of number.

But the reference given is either junk or don't support it Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

New theoretical computer science article on flip distance

Hi David. I was not in the Wikipedia edit-a-thon at FOCS, but I saw your blog post and was inspired by that event to work on a TCS article, so I created flip distance, a red link in rotation distance, which you created. It'll be great if you can improve it or give some feedback on what needs to be worked on. Personally, the article feels incomplete to me, maybe I'll work on polishing and expanding it (and rotation distance) another day.

Listing some improvements I'm thinking about here.

• The citation style is inconsistent since some of them are copied from flip graph while others are copied from citer. It doesn't affect the rendered article, but looks terrible in the source code.
• I would also like to make all refs named so that they can all be moved into the reflist, but copying, naming, and formatting by hand is quite laborious. Perhaps there's an automated tool that I'm not aware of?
• There's also the dilemma of "just summarize the latest and best result" vs "put every incremental progress into the article". Maybe there's an unofficial guide on the level of detail? Or maybe I should just read WP:MOS and all its subpages, which I'm sure everybody does before making an edit on this site. Looking at your articles, it seems that the best result (plus a bit of history) is sufficient.

That's all I can think of. I usually work on articles related to my hobbies and this is my first serious attempt at a TCS article, so I would appreciate some guidance. Thanks! PetraMagna (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the mixed citation style does affect the rendered article, and looks bad to me. For most readers, the only difference is. that. some. of the. citations. have. lots of. periods., and others use commas. But I have an extension added which specifically flags this mismatch, so I see lots of those flags. The fix is to choose one style and stick to it. You can either use Citation Style 1 (the "cite" series of templates, with the periods) or Citation Style 2 (the "citation" template, with the commas), it's up to you. You can also persuade either kind of template to render as the other using |mode=cs1 or |mode=cs2.

You can name them just by using <ref name=... instead of the usual ref tag. Then move them to the reflist at your leisure. I just use copy and paste in the source code editor; I don't know of a tool to help.

I don't think our style guides provide a lot of guidance on the content issue. The level of content you're providing already looks ok to me; I don't think it's necessary to provide a blow-by-blow summary of the entire history of most topics. I have a paper you could add, showing that flip distance is polynomial for convex subsets of lattices, among other types of point set [1] but I won't be particularly upset if you choose not to. Even if you don't, it might be worth checking its bibliography to see if there's anything else there that you might have missed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I believe I implemented all of them. The only issue is that the sentence about flip distance between convex polygon triangulations possibly being a NP-intermediate problem cannot be justified by a source. It looks like NP-intermediate does not have a source justifying the inclusion of flip distance/rotation distance neither. It's one of those things that "everyone knows it's true", but it counts as original research because no one bothered to write it down in a research paper. I guess I'll remove the sentence for now until I see a good source.

Also, since I'm putting your paper down as a variant of flip distance that admits a polynomial time algorithm, I might as well do that for rotation distance. I believe there are a few variants besides the the well-known one solved by Fordham. PetraMagna (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@PetraMagna: Look in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-08-01/Tips and tricks. Specifically, Citation Style Markers, Reference Organizer and RefRenamer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Reference Organizer is what I was looking for. I rearranged the refs manually for flip distance, but this tool will be very helpful for future edits. PetraMagna (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent

Some user had added unreferenced information in History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent article Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Anne Marie Kilday

I am happy for changes to be made that tidy up perceived bias - I would love to see expanded detail about her research and writing - but it is not reasonable to entirely delete commentary on the proposed closure of the ICLT at Northampton or the student protests about accommodation. I understand that you live in the USA but these are significantly reported on stories via credible outlets in the UK - including the BBC. Indeed it would be extraordinary for them not to be referred to in a biography of Kilday. SocialistStude (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK, and WP:BLP. It is not acceptable to hijack a biography of a living person as a forum for random student complaints about random things. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Lets be very clear I am not a student and certainly not at University of Northampton I adhere firmly to the rule that living biography cannot be written by a person familiar with the person (I trust that you are adhering to this too). There are exactly 3 events in Anne Marie's career that have appeared in the UK media with her name mentioned all reported by the BBC which is a reasonable benchmark. These are as follows: the proposed closure of ICLT, the accommodation protests, the signing of an open letter to the government. You have deleted all. I am happy to co-draft (and would welcome it) but these events cannot be simply deleted. There is to be fair one further event reported in local media - a less secure benchmark - the decision to cancel an artist at Oxford Brookes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialistStude (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Further to this I am not expert on Anne Marie's academic work and would welcome working with you to expand these aspects. This may add some more balance - if you feel this is lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialistStude (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do take a scalpel to this biography and change wording, references etc in any way you feel adds more balance, I would very much welcome this - but please do not simply approach this by amputating 3 facts in their entirety that are significant news stories in the UK national media. And please engage in conversation while doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialistStude (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

For context in the UK 'Vice-Chancellor' is a very high-public-profile, high pay position (really almost a political role of kinds, or like CEO of a large company rather than academic). It is usual for Vice-Chancellors to have a page on wikipedia and neutral writers will create one within months of appointment- although keeping up with changes might take some time. Neutrality and thorough referencing are essential. I also agree a good benchmark for inclusion in a UK context is 'actions under their tenure that have been reported by the BBC'. I do not see this as an unbalanced article - one issue though of course with this benchmark is that the BBC may primarily report dramatic events-based news, not day-to-day ordinary good decisions. I am happy to be part of a co-write on this if wanted. It is important though that a living biography as well as not overly critical is not overly glossed over or hagiographic. Certainly more on her academic output would be good. To declare: I am and never have been either student nor staff in any institution Kilday has worked in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopsiPot (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

List of indian invention and discovery

hlo ,David Eppstein. On 25th October 2023 you had removed information about Navya-Nyāya in the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries well that information is also present in articles like Indian logic,logic and History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Why are you trying to push other people to do your editing for you? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Because my edits were reverted and I don't know why they did this to those article. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to recruit editors to participate in edit wars. Try using the article talk pages instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ok Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Aripov Mersaid

Hi David -- Could I trouble you to take a look at the above Uzbeki mathematician stuck in AfC-land? Looks possibly notable but tone needs attention. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

These far eastern Europe cv-like drafts generally look very spammy to me, but maybe that's because I don't recognize the awards and memberships they list. As one of the AfC reviewers hints, most of the references are not good: they consist of web search results, links that don't mention him, badly linked pages that might not exist, published scientific articles on the topics mentioned that do not cite any works by him, etc. The Google Scholar citation counts do not convince me of WP:PROF#C1, especially as the top entry on his Scholar profile appears to be a book by other people, not him. I don't see anything in the article that could pass any other criterion (in particular, working for the Russian Academy of Sciences does not confer notability the way an honorary membership in the academy would). I am not tempted to put any effort into improving this and would !vote against keeping it as an article in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Function (mathematics)

Many years ago I tried to edit this article, but got into a dispute with another editor who insisted that the word "set" should be avoided at all costs because it supposedly turned off readers who hated mathematics. And he also insisted that a function should be a "rule for computing f(x) from x", ignoring Gödel and Turing and all that. After some 10 pages of discussion on the Talk page, a third editor joined the fight to insist that "function" should be defined in terms of category theory.

At that point I gave up and swore that I would never again try to edit a mathematics article on Wikipedia. (That is what "consensus" means in Wikipedia: "consensus of all editors who were not turned away by other editors") I am sorry that I succumbed to the temptation again.

As I explained in the edit summary, the first sentence of an article must define the concept, not just say something interesting about it. Not just give a "conceptual explanation" that does not tell the reader what is a function and what isn't. For one thing, what does "associate" mean? Can the association change with time? What is the fee for registering such an association? Who manufactures functions, are they patented, is there an official list of approved functions somewhere?

The set-theoretical definition -- a set of ordered pairs with unique lefties -- is the simplest one there is, and it precisely captures the concept as it is used in all fields, even those who restrict it by additional properties or would define it in more indirect or abstract ways. It is also quite understandable by any reader who cares to know what a function is. Such a reader must know what sets and ordered pairs are (if not, the wikilinks are there); it is impossible to write a correct and useful article for a reader who does not.

That definition also makes "function" a special case of relation (mathematics). That not only is an important fact, that the article must clearly state upfront, but it also means that all notions defined for the relations (inverse, composition, domain, image, union, intersection, restriction, ...) are automatically defined for functions as well.

Alternative definitions (like the "labeled" one that some authors (sloppily and inconsistently) use) can be mentioned in the body of the article.

All the best, Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Precise mathematical formalisms in leads are bad. That leads to the dry Bourbakiism and math-is-difficult counterreaction that drives people away from mathematics. Functions are introduced in middle school (graph a function!). Students at that level need to be able to get an understanding of functions that is suitable for that level. They should not have to understand set theory to do so. See also current thread WT:WPM#Making mathematical articles more broadly accessible. Your edits make an important article far less accessible. It is not helpful to do that.

In this case, additionally, by saying with Wikipedia's voice that functions are and can only be a specific formalism in set theory, we are taking a specific position in a broader debate rather than actually summarizing the debate. It is not a bad formalism, but it is not the only formalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

AFD close for Délvidék football team?

Hi, is this close actually yours? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide: See WP:ANI#IP-hopping anonymous AfD-closing vandal — forging other editors' signatures is one of the things this vandal has been doing. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah -- thanks for the info. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I think. DES Stuff.

Hey David E., - on the DES article - Drug-eluting stent

To give context - I wrote a small enhancement on design considerations.

Someone thought it worth the effort to make it a GA offering. I am happy to help - I have no real clue on the process, and I can only state the article looked abandoned and stalled in 2009 - not sure what the deal was. Think they all died tbh - wish I was joking.

Noted some comments you made - I have no clue, the article is better and others diluted out some of the lingo that I usually use to align with MEDMOS/GA - I am a physician, not really a technical writer, not a WP lingo chap - I'm not sure this is a WP:CIVIL world, not sure where the WP:HOSTILITY vibe comes from - not sure I actually even care.

I am simply being polite - you seem experienced as an editor and have an interesting background - again, just trying to be WP:CHUMMY.

Cheers: Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi – I have no interest in nor competence to discuss drug-eluting stent. My edits there were merely for the purpose of cleanup after you accidentally created a review page for your own Good Article nomination. You must wait for someone else to do that, when someone takes interest in reviewing the article. Creating the review page is how editors become the reviewer of a GA nomination, and you cannot review your own nominations. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood - this was crystal clear - cheers.

BeingObjective (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries. And sorry for any hostile vibe; I meant none. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My own snippness is not directed at you - been here ~5 weeks or so - made a fair few contributions, and likely the WP world is just like this - lots of fire fights and contentious behaviors - or I might just be really old and the world has changed in regards to what folks think is civil. Cheers anyhooo - BeingObjective (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Women who died in 2023 | Honoured Women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Avoid copyright problems by rewriting in your own words. You can check any article or draft with Earwig's copyvio detector. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Gleason the frog

See [2] re Gleason being a frog. I wanted to talk about that in something I'm writing, but I can't find the words bird, frog, or Dyson anywhere in the AMS Notices memorial section [3]. Surely it's not your own SYNTH? EEng 23:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The relevant quote from Bolker is "Andy was a problem solver more than a theory builder" (p.1238). For the "frog" terminology see [4] which makes exactly the same distinction. It is not so much a synthesis as a colorful way of rephrasing Bolker's characterization rather than re-using exactly his words. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I completely agree AMG was a frog (and would himself have heartily welcomed the characterization), which is why I went looking for a citation. But the ice is a bit thin per the last example at WP:SYNTH, don't you think? But I'm not going to fuss it, certainly. EEng 00:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It is my strong impression that that line from Bolker was alluding to Dyson's distinction, which at the time had been recently published in the same journal. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point. BTW (since IIRC you never met him) look what was discovered on a dusty shelf recently: [5] (with video link at the bottom). Brought a tear to my eye hearing his voice again. EEng 02:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Anning theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erdős–Anning theorem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ThatChemist25 -- ThatChemist25 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Plastic number

David--maybe you can have a look at recent edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Some could probably use better sourcing, but that was also true of the previous content. They don't strike me as being especially problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

[6]

I had the bot run literally the previous edit and it didn't change any title. You're tilting at windmills here.

TNTing titles upon cite arxiv --> cite journal conversion happens once because the published version often have different titles than arxiv titles. Once the conversion has been done, there's nothing left to change. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

If the arXiv title doesn't even match the published title, then the versions of the publication are probably different enough to require manual attention to checking that the updated publication actually matches the use made of the publication in our article. Manual attention that you failed to provide in this case. The article said "announced in 2022" and the announcement was the arXiv preprint. That text of our article was not backed up by your edit changing the publication to a 2023 version. The change was an improvement (why I kept it rather than reverting the whole thing) but should have been combined with checking and updating the article text to match.

Additionally if it replaces a title by a version of the same title that is formatted worse then it is not improving the reference. Your statement about how this only happens in this one case is no excuse.

There are human editors who I am familiar enough to trust their edits and not check when I see them on my watchlist and editors who need checking because they repeatedly fuck things up. Citation bot is on my "repeatedly fuck things up" list. It is wasting my time and the time of other editors making us check its bad edits. If we didn't check, it would instead be gradually making the encyclopedia worse by making unchecked bad edits. So when I see yet another bad edit by it to yet another of my watchlisted articles, I don't care about your excuses, I just want it to stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead, tell me in [7], where I failed to provide 'attention'.

And I have literally shown the bot won't change any title on that article. You'd think proof would be worth something to a mathematician. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You have shown only that the current version of the bot happens not to change the titles on the current version of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ehsan Roohi

Hey David, you do NACADEMICS, right? The article is utter spam, so I was wondering if you could help answer whether it should be deleted or cleaned up. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Femke

I've changed the sourcing and copyedited the wording in the Etymology section of Femke and I think the failed verification issue is now resolved. – Editør (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Prof candidates

As you've doubtless noticed, my method for figuring out whether an academic is likely notable is to ask you. Today I'm wondering how much time it takes you to do an initial estimate (a "good enough" starting point, not a definitive deep dive). For example, https://www.grinnell.edu/people?faculty_dept=211 lists 15 people. Would checking all of them be an hour's work? Significantly more? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

From that directory page alone I can immediately see that Leslie Lyons and Elaine Marzluff are notable (named professor, #C5), that six others are probably not (assistant or associate at non-R1 university), and that the remaining seven full professors might or might not be. My next step would be to look at their citation records, to see whether any of them pass #C1, since they appear to be in a journal field not a book one. Looking up any one of them in Google Scholar might take a minute or three, but the slow part is calibrating what kind of citation record I should be looking for, since I have no idea what typical citation rates are like in this specific field. If I were being more careful rather than just doing a rough guess I would also need to look up society fellowships, etc., which take more effort because not everyone has an easy-to-find cv. Just answering this question probably took five minutes. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like the answer is usually somewhere between 1 and 15 minutes (and could be more), and that some of this could be simplified for you. For example: If I brought you a Google Scholar link or a CV instead of just a name, or if we had a field-specific list of typical citation rates, then that would make things faster for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Anning theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erdős–Anning theorem you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Anning theorem

The article Erdős–Anning theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erdős–Anning theorem for comments about the article, and Talk:Erdős–Anning theorem/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of L'OrfeoGreco -- L'OrfeoGreco (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! 🎉 WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Paper fortune teller

Just reminding you! One of the sections in your GA, Paper fortune teller, has been considered as the original research. See here Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That material is entirely sourced to the source at the end of the paragraph, and specifically to the paragraph on page 5 of that source starting "David Lister has noticed". It is not original research. It is just a drive-by tag by an editor who apparently failed to even check the reference. I have removed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention, are you sure that this article is about mathematics? From my perspective, this article is cover about the toys in general and has no relation with mathematics. I'll place it in the right section. If you disagree, you can revert my edit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which GA listing this lands in. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Block on 2607:FEA8::/32

This block covers the IPv6 addresses of most Toronto customers of Rogers Communications, one of the largest Canadian ISPs - many thousands of editors and potential editors - all to keep out one vandal. As frustrating as the vandalism no doubt is, there has got to be a better way. 99.224.72.201 (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

This is true. It also blocks folks with Rogers from at least Ottawa & Montreal, the 6th and 2nd largest cities in Canada respectively. I'm deeply unsure this is the correct move. Libertb (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked. I eagerly await your suggestions for how to prevent the blatant WP:BLP and WP:ARBPIA violations, spread among scattered articles, coming from this range. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi David, I write you here to avoid noise at WiR. If you could highlight for me the alleged personal attacks I have made, I will be happy to clarify my position. I intervened just to point out that the Italian wikicommunity is not "a bunch of sexist men". We took our decisions about a user and her approach to the community, that was judged disruptive. My intention was not to "attack" anybody, but to show what happened imho. The people asking me diffs don't really need evidence, because we went through this issue last year here on en.wiki and everybody offered the basis of their beliefs. We simply disagree on the matter: to offer diffs would have meant only to raise more dust, so I stepped back. I am always willing to understand the point of view of the people I talk to, with one exception: people that are so dominated by their point of view that every discussion is just shouting at each other, maybe saying "your position is rooted in your sexism". I think this is terribly sad, even more so when the en.wiki community takes the liberty of judging other communities' issues. In short, my point was: maybe the Italian community took a bad decision, but that was after reasoning, discussion, peace offers. It was a falsifiable decision, rooted in a long history of issues. Justifiable in my view... but in this case one would need an impossible God's POV to say "this is right, that is wrong". I simply pointed at the grey matter that sometimes lives between black and white. Best regards. Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 13:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop your gaslighting. I don't want to repeat your personal attacks here but they were blatant and obvious. You did not merely defend Italian men, you did so by attacking others. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You are really misjudging my intentions and left me open-mouthed. I have been editing since 2007 and never treated like this. In my 9 years as a sysop on it.wiki I always tried to build dialogue, connection and mutual respect. To be labelled as a gaslighter by somebody that doesn't know anything about my background is really appalling, but hey I can't do anything about it, so adieu, for good. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 18:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The source

Hi, @David Eppstein. I was looking for the following source

• Berman, Martin (1971), "Regular-faced convex polyhedra", Journal of the Franklin Institute, 291 (5): 329–352, doi:10.1016/0016-0032(71)90071-8, MR 0290245

Your GA Triaugmented triangular prism uses this source for its surface area and volume. Would you like to verify that this source mentions the equilateral square pyramid as well; or more generally, the surface area and volume of all 92 Johnson solids? I can't access this source and probably need some help. I'm planning for another improvement article. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The triaugmented triangular prism is visible in Fig.2, #34, whose caption names it as the elongated triangular dipyramid M1+P3+M1, and its properties are given in line 34 of Table IV (which extends over multiple pages but the page with line 34 is p.337). I am pretty sure it has similar detail for all 92. I have it in pdf format; since it's a copyrighted file I wouldn't want to put it anywhere public-facing, but I could email you a copy. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Thanks. But is it fine? This is my first time I asked for the journal in pdf file via email. I frightenedly don't want to take any risk of harm of someone's privacy things.

I don't want to spoil this. The reason I asked is because I was trying to improve the article List of Johnson solids. From my perspective, they are the potential of featured-list class as the table mentions the symmetry, surface area, and the volume. The lead may be expanded, explaning the characteristics of polyhedra in general. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sharing an article with one other person for research purposes, which emailing a copy of it to you would be, clearly falls under fair use. (Wikipedia does not allow media to be published on its site under fair use in most circumstances, but does not make restrictions like that about communications between individual editors.) Reproducing an entire table from that article within a Wikipedia article would be problematic, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Okay. If that's the case, I would like to have the pdf journal, please. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein You may look at my one of the sandboxes here

• User:Dedhert.Jr/sandbox/1

These are just the rough sketch of the improvement. They mention the meaning of (convex) polyhedra, the symmetry, and more characteristics about that polyhedra. But the problem is that I can't even describe more about the symmetrical things (that I probably asked for another assistance), and so on. I have tried to reduce the number of columns of the table in the original article, which, for me, it is annoying and technical. Some of the tables are amalgamated into one table. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Re:Reproducing an entire table from that article within a Wikipedia article would be problematic, though. I don't get it. Are you saying is it problematic to expand the article List of Johnson solids, cited with that given journal source? In what sense? Copyright? I don't want to misunderstand your words, so can you explain more in detail? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think raw data like that is uncopyrightable. And it looks like you are building the table anyway and just need a source for people to verify its content. But if someone else did it differently, by just copying and pasting the table with exactly the same formatting as it had in the paper, that could be more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Thank you. I was kinda confused that if it is problematic, if this is already fail. If I would like to understand more about the FL, I think I can ask the discussion page. Also, have you received my reply? I'm sorry that I haven't touch Gmail in long time (ocassionally). Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I got your reply and sent the file to that email. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein Ahh, yes! Thank you so much. This is absolutely crucial anyway, containing the net as well. Perfect! I think I could probably use this for other potential GA's here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

the smallest circle problem

David, what can I do to make the page use correct randomized algorithm with the linear complexity? Last time, I was trying to persuade you the Welzl's algorithm is incorrect, you said that I am just writing some circles with a cryptic legend without actual reasonng why the algorithm returns wrong results (and that it is not clear which algorithm is meant). So I have writen short reasoning, edited the picture, included the algorithm in the picture. You have told, you cannot find the references in the Matousek Sharir, Welzl's paper, I have pointed to the page in the article and the affected paragraph. Can you reconsider your undoing my changes or at least start reasoning why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippo.69 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to a reliably published source stating explicitly that the Welzl paper is wrong and stating how it goes wrong. All I have seen so far is pages and pages of your calculations suggesting that either it is wrong or you are not following it correctly, but maybe somewhere buried in there is something I missed. Your new attempted additions, besides being unencyclopedically written, point to a statement that the smallest enclosing ball is LP-type but not basis-regular. The same text also includes a statement that Welzl solved this problem in linear time. Without a published statement that Welzl was incorrectly using an algorithm that assumed basis-regularity we cannot use this to conclude anything about Welzl's algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

OK so the updated picture, the explanation why points 4, 1 and 3 are put to R does not correspond to the algorithm published here on the wiki page (mentioned on the picture)? Yes, definitely it is either wrong, or I am not following it correctly. Can you help me find where I follow it wrong? How you trace the algorithm when it choses point 4 first ... will the point be put to R? Am I wrong here? Where am I wrong? Hippo.69 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, FIND PUBLISHED SOURCES that say it is wrong. Your original research is the wrong way to do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Three years ago you have said you do not mind it was not published on a conference paper, that you mind clarity.

So you either changed mind or you lied three years before or you mean the explanation is no clear at all. Hippo.69 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to throw insults I don't see the point of further engagement with this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I hoped you would answer the explanation is not clear, but if you have decided it is insult, you have already decided to stop the discussion, and I have no chance to change your decision. I have mailed Welzl and Sharir to asked what they meant in their paper ... let me see if some of them answers. But I definitely do not know if it would change anything.Hippo.69 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you were right, Emo Welzl did not know the algorithm is not correct. Hippo.69 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

And Micha Sharir as well. Hippo.69 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have find the exact place where the paper is wrong. It is among wo words .... "(details omied)" See the talk to Smallest circle problem. But it is not published in a reliable source ...Hippo.69 (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

So I have made a citation without adding a personal opinion ... I hope it matches wikipedia standards. But I definitely do not like it. I do not expect it is a final version, but if you prefer it I would change the legend on the picture...Hippo.69 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have to paint another picture with algorithm containing "D defined and" and not containing or |R|=3.

According wikipedia standards not saying it is wrong, just documenting contradiction in B_MINDISK(P,R) returns b_md(P,R) and never returns an undefined result. Hippo.69 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Done, I have not stated my opinion, I just added a documentary picure ... but I prefere the versions mentioning msw algorithm. Hippo.69 (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, you were right that I have not interpeted the algorithm correctly. You can delete this discussion whenever you decide. Hippo.69 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Small set expansion hypothesis

The article Small set expansion hypothesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis for comments about the article, and Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Harukkaaario -- Harukkaaario (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

(For context, this non-review has been removed; see WT:GAN#Muslim–Muslim ticket.) —David Eppstein (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Weisfeiler Leman graph isomorphism test

Hey, I wasn't doubting that this topic is notable. I added two tags - context and original research. The first because the extensive diagrams are pretty dense and hard to understand far beyond the usual expected diagrams, they lack any kind of link to helpful keys or labels, or related topics that might help someone understand what they are. It also contains extensive code and mathematic statements that don't appear to be cited to anything, such as the section "The basic Weisfeiler Leman graph isomorphism test," which does not appear to be cited. Andre🚐 05:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Not cited ≠ original research. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I assumed it to be original research since it was rather detailed technical and mathematical code and diagrams. Regardless, can you please put whatever cleanup tag you judge most appropriate on that article. Andre🚐 05:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I went with {{overly detailed}}. If you're going to remove it, can you please put another tag in its place? WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Andre🚐 05:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTTEXTBOOK is a bad guideline, used to push away material that should be in the encyclopedia, such as readable explanations of algorithms. You cannot explain algorithms without describing how they work. We should aim to cover all topics that would normally be in textbooks, not none of them. Or perhaps you would rather have an encyclopedia consisting only of restaurant reviews, sporting tournament results, and other material that would not be in textbooks? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be clear, I don't want to AFD the article. I just think that the text is hard to understand, lacks inline references, and is overly detailed, so I put some cleanup tags on it. An explanation of an algorithm can be constructed in such a way that doesn't involve someone instructing the reader in-depth with working code examples, which WP:NOT journal and textbook clearly warns against. If you want to change the policy, start up a discussion about it - why should this particular article be special? I'm sorry. I'm willing to change my view on this of course, but do you really think the article is fine as-is? It seemed clearly to be the original work of a well-versed person creating detailed instructions that go beyond the remit of an overview. Maybe we should find a WP:3O? Andre🚐 05:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me to be an attempt at explaining an important topic by someone who is not yet skilled at encyclopedic exposition. But how do you think someone gets skilled? By yelling at them that they're doing it wrong? See WP:BITE. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Who did I yell at? If our templates feel like yelling, something is indeed rotten in Denmark. Andre🚐 05:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

A lot of new page patrol results appear to me to be yelling. Perhaps a lot of them are attempts at encouraging new editors by people who are not skilled at encouraging new editors. But in this case, we lack the feedback loop that would cause practice to lead to improvement. In any case, yes, I think putting big blaring YOUR ARTICLE IS BAD AND HERE'S HOW signs at the start of a newish article, and then insisting that they remain there permanently as a mark of shame for how bad the article is, has the appearance of yelling. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't contact the article creator at all, but if you feel that tagging an article using page curation with a template is yelling, perhaps we should consider some kind of reform policy like changing the template format or moving them to the talk page. I tagged the article while I was considering whether to mark it as reviewed (which I have, since your comment that it is conclusively notable indicates to me that it would survive AFD). You reverted my addition of the tags, so I contacted you. I still haven't contacted the creator. I have no idea if they've even seen the tag yet. Andre🚐 06:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Please see User_talk:Tpreu#Weisfeiler_Leman_graph_isomorphism_test Andre🚐 06:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we should reserve article-space cleanup banners for situations in which we genuinely need to warn readers (not editors) that they might have some reason for mistrusting the contents of an article. I don't think they work well as a way of attracting editors (look how many years many of them have lasted!) and if existing editors are looking for cleanup work to do there are other ways of finding them than seeing them in articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, doesn't that somewhat run counter to the established system of new page patrol? And do you think it's ok for me, as a brand new new page reviewer, trying to follow all the flow charts and having to argue with established admins that maybe NOTTEXTBOOK isn't a good policy and we should just allow people to put their homework on an article and not tag it or in any way address it, then be told the standard template is yelling, and that I'm biting a user I haven't even spoken to? Andre🚐 06:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

When I don't think the established system is working well, I think maybe it would be a good idea to say so instead of huddling in a box and insisting that because it's the established system we must stick with it. Who do you think established it in the first place? Why do you think they would have had a better idea then how it would turn out to work, before it became established, than we had now? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So fix the system, I find your feedback interesting, but in the meantime, this is the system we've got. I just signed up for NPP and it's not going to look good for my chances of spending further time in it if admins are saying that I'm BITEy. So can we agree that I'm just playing the game with the tools we have, and if you have some ideas how to improve NPP, I'll be glad to support them in the appropriate time and place? Hope that is a reasonable request. Andre🚐 06:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

NPP is a bit of a thankless job, but it is actually important. The main task is to distinguish the spam (of which there is a lot) from the good stuff, and keep out the spam. If you bite only the spammers, I think there is no cause for complaint. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least according to what's written in the docs, NPP is not just the No Spam Patrol. The page triage aspect involves adding categories, adding wikiprojects, short descriptions (I haven't been doing this one) and cleanup tags where necessary - in lieu of AFD, draftification. I don't claim to be doing everything right, as I said, I just started. But I do not think it counts as biting a user to tag their article. In fact, several users had thanked me for tagging their articles. Andre🚐 06:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Doing cleanups like adding categories is also useful, of course. Actually, I think the uncategorized banner is one that really does tend to produce results, because it's easy to fix, it's not hard to tell when it's ready to be removed, and and there are plenty of gnomes looking for opportunities to categorize articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Well-covered graph

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Well-covered 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas, David Eppstein! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Well-covered graph

The article Well-covered graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Well-covered graph for comments about the article, and Talk:Well-covered graph/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hyperbolic spiral

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hyperbolic spiral you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments are included in the article review. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Because of the holidays I may be a little slow to respond. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Just one question left, and I will continue the review. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but which question was it? I thought I answered them all but I could easily have missed something. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Accusing for drive-by

Dear Mr. Eppstein,

Please don’t accuse me for drive-by when you don’t have the whole picture. I was the instructing force behind the original creator of the article advising how to use this platform. I hope you can revert your own edit and then revert my edit with appropriate corrections. Seasons greetings, and take care.

Aaaatu (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you rather I quickfailed Rylsee? That was the other alternative. It is badly sourced and promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Just curious

Happy holidays David. This edit peaked my interest. Other then the thread slightly above it (which seems like a frustrating predicament), does citation bot have a history of rather precarious editing? Aza24 (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It often makes good edits. But at some point it reaches a point of diminishing returns, where the improvements it makes are too heavily counterbalanced by the mistakes, and there's a tendency for those mistakes to keep piling up without human attention to fix them again, because the humans are relying on the bots and the bots will polish the bad parts rather than fixing things.

A case in point: I edited today Hanani–Tutte theorem, for which 9 out of the 12 edits from the last four years were by reference-cleaning bots (not all of them Citation bot). The bots keep editing the article despite it having been thoroughly cleaned up after the first few bot edits, mostly things like adding useless s2cid and doi-access tags. But when I looked at it, there were several significant issues with the references that they kept bypassing: one reference unnecessarily listed a publisher for its journal (missing some words in the publisher name and usually omitted from journal references), two were in the wrong citation format (CS1 rather than CS2), the title capitalization and use of dashes was inconsistent, one reference listed a 2020 preprint version when the same reference had been more reliably published as a conference proceedings paper in 2021, and one reference incorrectly italicized one letter of its title when the original publication did not use italics. So the amount of improvement to the article caused by all the bot-polishing, relative to the improvements that were available to be made, had diminished to almost nothing.

When articles come to be dominated only by bot edits like this one, my worry is that one bot will make a bad edit (for instance adding an incorrect id), a second bot will treat that information as correct and "fix" the rest of the citation to match it, and after enough edits like that the reference will be total garbage, with nobody noticing the problem. I've seen it happen. I don't want it to be the usual state of affairs. So we need some kind of shutoff valve, telling the bots: enough is enough, quit your polishing unless you have something substantial to do. And we need the bots to be programmed in a way that makes them capable of recognizing their limitations, recognizing situations where they are likely to misunderstand what they are doing or accidentally override better human judgement, and avoid acting when the likelihood of acting incorrectly is high. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Bot polishing should certainly be more carefully thought out. Wikipedia always seems to be on the "all or nothing" approach: these kinds of bots edit all articles, with no directions on if they will be productive. The "Suggested by" function seems to be a joke, since, I'm sure these suggestions are huge lists of articles that are "mass suggested" without actual oversight.

I've seen some editors just give up and deny the bot, as Tim did on Berlioz. I was close to that but figured the "editor" parameter problem seemed directly addressable, at least this time. Aza24 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hyperbolic spiral

The article Hyperbolic spiral you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hyperbolic spiral for comments about the article, and Talk:Hyperbolic spiral/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's greetings

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello David Eppstein: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2024

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296 Online events: New: Education (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Temperance women Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2023 Announcement In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part of the #1day1woman initiative! Tip of the month: Check out the new navigation on our Women in Red Project home page. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

Hi David, goodhearted Levite here, please help! tinyurl.com/MeAtAge10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Hōō#Request_to_compare_the_two_versions_neutrally,_side_by_side:

My good-faith accuracy-improving contributions have been unjustly implied vandalism with an added threat placed on my user-talk page of me being permanently blocked if I were to personally reinstate the contributions: so I feel forced to appeal to a neutral admin such as yourself.

(It is suggested here [8] to find a neutral admin who might be currently able to help here [9].)

Please forgive the time it will take to overrule the mistakenly-reverting-editor's wrongful action. I'm simply requesting a neutral editor to click the "undo" button (which can be seen on the right-side of the page, linked to directly below), if you do indeed agree the contributions I made on the left-side of the page are accurate goodhearted contributions for accuracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_H%C5%8D%C5%8D&diff=prev&oldid=1192764429

Eternal Gratitude for your altruistic help in quickly resolving this minor mistake fairly. Thank you! :-) 240B:12:5381:EC00:F08D:28E2:BF1D:855B (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be vandalism to me, and WyenaTheGirl is not a very experienced editor or one whose threats should be taken seriously. However, the little Japanese I know is pitifully inadequate to distinguish Hō'ō from Hōō or dake from gadake. The proper advice would be: take it to the talk page of the article there (not some random admin) so that editors who have watchlisted the article can provide their opinions. I think they are likely to be more knowledgeable. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

And if one wonders why "YakushiDake" and 'KannonDake" must be changed to "YakushiGaDake" and "KannonGaDake" respectfully for accuracy, check the final sentence of the Japanese Wikipedia section about this:

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/鳳凰山#山名の由来

"In 2005, the mountain names that had previously been 'YakushiDake' and 'KannonDake' were changed by the Governmental Geographical Survey Institute to 'YakushiGaDake' and 'KannonGaDake'."

And if one wonders why Mt. "Hōō" must be changed to Mt. "Hō'ō" pedantically for accuracy, check the usage by Martin Hood himself, the translator of the definitive masterpiece on the subject itself "Nihon Hyakumeizan by Fukada Kyūya", in the 2014-published and well-respected "One Hundred Mountains of Japan" chapter specifically about Mt. Hō'ō (Ctrl+F Hō'ō)

https://onehundredmountains.blogspot.com/2009/06/goats-and-gaijin.html

So again, thank you for considering the evidence, of all the contributions made on the left-side of the page being worthy of reinstating, by clicking the "undo" button on the right-side of the page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_H%C5%8D%C5%8D&diff=prev&oldid=1192764429

Sincerely,

HaLevi :-) 240B:12:5381:EC00:F08D:28E2:BF1D:855B (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello David Eppstein: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)