Jump to content

User talk:David Eppstein

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.184.26.105 (talk) at 00:50, 22 February 2022 (→Journal of Schenkerian Studies). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. For discussions concerning specific Wikipedia articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

Your GA nomination of Free abelian group

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Free abelian group you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Free abelian group

The article Free abelian group 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:Free abelian group for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Free abelian group

The article Free abelian group you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Free abelian group for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Factorial

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Factorial you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vogon101 -- Vogon101 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Factorial

The article Factorial you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Factorial for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vogon101 -- Vogon101 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is here - as I certainly passed it, please let me know if there is something I need to fix Vogon101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bot glitches sometimes. The talk page where the passed nomination goes looks ok to me. I wouldn't worry about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Regular number

On 6 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Regular number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that certain bamboo species release large numbers of seeds in synchrony after numbers of years that have only 2, 3, and 5 as their prime factors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Regular number. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Regular number), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Three-gap theorem

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Three-gap 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 Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jessen's icosahedron

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jessen's icosahedron you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Straus conjecture

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erdős–Straus conjecture you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Erd?s–Straus conjecture

The article Erd?s–Straus conjecture you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Erd?s–Straus conjecture for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This time the bot glitch was predictable; it always does this for articles with non-ASCII titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, David,

I saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilar Dirik and I noticed that Draft:Dilar Dirik also exists. The deleted page actually directs the reader to the draft page. Do you think this draft falls within the scope of the AFD? Thanks for considering this query. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I think that would be a stretch. The main reason for deletion was speedy G7 and the draft creator, User:Czar, appears unrelated to anyone who edited the article. Maybe Czar would be willing to tag their draft G7 as well, based on the arguments in the AFD? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G7'd—didn't know about the discussion so appreciate the heads up czar 07:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Cooney

Excuse me, David: I cited the Henry Ford Museum and History.com for the Rosa Parks entry — I was Very Careful in my citations; so please restore my edits. Discpad (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You sourced a BLP to a far-right hit piece. That is unacceptable and you should know better than to ever do such a thing, let alone ask to be allowed to continue doing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David, if you meant to revert this edit of mine, I'd like to understand why. I suspect it got caught up in your vigilance keeping that WP:COATRACK criticism out. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That edit looks unproblematic to me. I agree that it got caught up in the other edits. I have no objection to your reinstating it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jessen's icosahedron

The article Jessen's icosahedron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jessen's icosahedron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Antiparallelogram

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Antiparallelogram you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elli -- Elli (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Erdős–Straus conjecture

The article Erdős–Straus conjecture 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:Erdős–Straus conjecture for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Square pyramidal number

On 14 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Square pyramidal number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the number of cannonballs in a square pyramid (pictured) with cannonballs along each edge is ? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Square pyramidal number. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Square pyramidal number), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

block of 2402:7500:917:30C4:54AA:108F:3ECB:103F

Hi, thanks for blocking the LTA at the above IP. Could you also block the /64 range of that at Special:Contributions/2402:7500:917:30C4:0:0:0:0/64? See WP:/64 - ISPs treat IPv6 /64 ranges like single IPv4 addresses. For example earlier today the LTA was using 2402:7500:917:30C4:F49C:9CA3:EEE6:A404, another IP in the range, so blocking the /64 would be better for preventing block evasion. Thanks, eviolite (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. I wasn't aware of WP:/64 before but it makes a clear enough case for how to block IP6's as a general rule. That range turned up another edit to domino tiling which also looks like X. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Catherine Cavagnaro

On 16 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catherine Cavagnaro, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that record-setting airplane spinner Catherine Cavagnaro is also a professional mathematician? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Cavagnaro. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Catherine Cavagnaro), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Three-gap theorem

The article Three-gap theorem 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:Three-gap theorem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFA nomination for Group (mathematics)

I have nominated Group (mathematics) to run as today's featured article for an unspecified date. I included you as a main editor for the article because of your participation in the article's FAR in April/May 2021. Editors may join the discussion for this nomination at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Group (mathematics). Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander–Spanier cohomology

Could you take a look at Talk:Alexander–Spanier cohomology? I think I found an error in the formula defining the differential in the article, but I'm not completely sure of my correction, as shown in talk.--agr (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a subject I'm familiar enough with to say anything with confidence of being correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understand.Thanks anyway.--agr (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koenigs-theorem-proof.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Koenigs-theorem-proof.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 03:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Antiparallelogram

The article Antiparallelogram you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Antiparallelogram for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Elli -- Elli (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Factorial

On 20 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Factorial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that factorials are more likely to begin with small digits? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Factorial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Factorial), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Three-gap theorem

The article Three-gap theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Three-gap theorem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jessen's icosahedron

On 26 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jessen's icosahedron, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jessen's icosahedron (pictured) has been used for both the "Skwish" children's toy and a NASA proposal for a "super ball bot" to cushion space landers on other planets? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jessen's icosahedron. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jessen's icosahedron), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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) 01:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February with Women in Red

Women in Red Feb 2022, Vol 8, Issue 2, Nos 214, 217, 220, 221, 222


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

CN template in BLP Wiesława Nizioł

Re "It does indeed need a source, but it was very easy to find. Did you even try?" here:

The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material

— WP:BLP

--CiaPan (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words you're happy to make work for other editors without lifting a finger to do any yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I did not add unreferenced info. --CiaPan (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Antiparallelogram

On 13 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Antiparallelogram, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an antiparallelogram (example pictured) is a crossed quadrilateral with two pairs of equal-length edges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Antiparallelogram. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Antiparallelogram), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 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, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits in Paulette Libermann

Hi David Eppstein, I believe there have been some misunderstandings regarding my last edits, so I thought it was better to discuss them here. I apologise in advance if I misinterpreted your edit summaries.

Regarding the citations: I was not aware of this difference between citations styles 1 and 2, thanks for letting me know. I have always created them automatically (e.g. using DOI), while, as far as I understood, Citation Style 2 needs a manual input of the various data, so it looks to me a much less convenient method. Is there maybe some argument why citation style 2 should be preferred in general (e.g. it makes easier/better something else I am not seeing)? Anyways, I understand that it was already used before my edits and, according to WP:CITEVAR, it should be kept that way, so I'll try to fix it.

Regarding using Libermann's papers as references about Libermann: in your previous edit you transformed the links to those papers into a separate list of "selected publications". In my last edit I didn't touch those references at all, nor I added new papers, so I don't understand why you claim I kept making the same mistake. Or am I missing something?

Last question: in the previous edit I used Zentralblatt MATH as source (to prove that Libermann had a certain amount of papers), which you dismissed as "search engine results are unacceptable as sources". I thought that zbMATH was a reliable source, since it doesn't simply collect random papers/books but review them as well (unlike for instance Google Scholar, which is indeed much less reliable on this matter). Then would also MathSciNet (which I had not used since it's subscription only, and I thought it would be better to use an open access resource) not be allowed as well?

Thanks! Francesco Cattafi (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is WP:CITEVAR. You should not change citation styles. It is usually a simple matter of using the {{citation}} template instead of the {{cite}} templates. It is easier, because you do not need to choose which of the many {{cite}} templates to use. If your automatic software is incapable of doing that, fix it. As for zbMATH: individual signed reviews on zbMATH are reliable sources for what that paper is about. A search result for all papers by someone is not. Search engine results are always disallowed as links. A carefully curated author profile (like the ones on Google Scholar) can be included in the external links but not as a reference. In general, most of our academic biographies avoid saying "they have published 371 papers". It is not particularly useful information to readers. Why include it? I can't even accurately count my own papers. Instead, a carefully selected small set of the most influential papers and books seems a better choice to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems and solved problems in mathematics

Hi, @David Eppstein, I would like to ask about the unsolved and solved problems in mathematics. My first question is why the solved problems have been written in unsolved problems of mathematics? Is it better to make a new page about the solved problems in mathematics? Is it better to write about who's solved the problems and what are the solutions (if the idea, that is, to make a new page about solved problems in mathematics, is acceptable)? Regards Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fibonacci nim

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fibonacci nim you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Infinity symbol

The article Infinity symbol 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:Infinity symbol for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Theleekycauldron -- Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Häberl

Hi there. Hate to bug you, but could you take a look at this article and give me your opinion? Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of an expert on religious studies scholars, and tend to stay out of their deletion discussions, because the non-academic side of their notability is somewhat opaque to me. But from the academic side, this one looks ok. Citation counts are low but I think that's to be expected for the field. I would start by looking for published reviews of his books. The Neo-Mandaic Dialect of Khorramshahr has three on JSTOR [1], [2], [3]. I also found one review for The Mandaean book of John [4]. That's enough to make at least a weak case for WP:AUTHOR. President of the International Linguistic Association might also be WP:PROF#C6. So I don't see a lot of reason for questioning this article's legitimacy, and a reasonable likelihood that it would be kept in an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Schenkerian Studies

Hi. Thanks for all your constructive engagement on the Timothy L. Jackson article. I genuinely appreciate your willingness to have a serious conversation, and I acknowledge that I don't always succeed at being as dispassionate as one would hope.

In that vein... The anonymous IP contributor to that discussion basically bounces back and forth between that page, Philip Ewell's page, and the Journal of Schenkerian Studies page pushing their point of view. (Also the page for Heinrich Schenker himself, but I ain't going NEAR that one.) As I have now reached the point where any more edits on my part on those pages could reasonably be considered edit warring, I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look at the recent edits to the JSS page in particular? I'm utterly baffled by the distinction being drawn between "biological racism" and "racism," and I don't know how to respond.

Thanks for your time. PianoDan (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. Biological racism is based on race; cultural racism is based on the differences between cultures. Racism against Blacks in America is biological. Germans' hatred of the French and English after WWI is cultural. Schenker's racism was cultural because he criticized other peoples, especially the French and the English, not other races.

Ewell tried to show that Schenker was a cultural racist by distorting Schenker's quotes. Wiener in the article I added last night to the JSS entry said this. So did Jackson in the Quillette article that PianoDan keeps deleting. Most of the writers in JSS are acknowledging Schenker's cultural racism. Only the Beaudin article is clearly using the term in the biological sense.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1073294872"