User talk:David Eppstein

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.)

DYK for Clio (Hendrik Goltzius)

On 5 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Clio (Hendrik Goltzius), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Harvard may have been inspired by Clio? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clio (Hendrik Goltzius). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Clio (Hendrik Goltzius)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dual graph

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dual graph you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Congrats. I see here that I was supposed to take less than 7 days - sorry! Anyway, nice job on the article, and thanks for working on my suggested changes. --99of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem re the delay — I'd rather have a thorough review than a quick one, and I haven't been lacking for other things to do in the meantime. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2-satisfiability

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2-satisfiability 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 Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2-satisfiability

2SAT

The article 2-satisfiability you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2-satisfiability for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 05:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of the best hook for this at DYK. Maybe something about a traveling salesman getting satisfied? Sex sells, you know. EEng 06:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast and easy. Thanks, Falcon! Re the DYK, it's a pretty dry article, so finding a hook seems difficult. Sadly, I think the connection to the TSP is too weak to make a good hook. One possibility:

• ... that 2-satisfiability can be used to schedule round-robin tournaments so that teams alternate between home and away games as much or as little as possible?

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty good, actually. Another thought would be to craft a hook around the nonogram, which works great at 100px. EEng 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. Check this out.

Ok, nominated with the tournament hook at Template:Did you know nominations/2-satisfiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You really prefer that to the nonogram? It's so catchy! EEng 00:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I do like the nonogram image but I couldn't come up with a catchy hook based on it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

How about, ... that 2SAT can help solve a nonogram (pictured)? I fear, however, that no matter what we do the most common result of a reader clicking through will be to reinforce his school-age certainty that he will never, ever understand math. EEng 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, added to the nom as ALT1. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 90

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rule 90 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 CheCheDaWaff -- CheCheDaWaff (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 90

The article Rule 90 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:Rule 90 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheCheDaWaff -- CheCheDaWaff (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule 90

The article Rule 90 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rule 90 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CheCheDaWaff -- CheCheDaWaff (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dual graph

The article Dual graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dual graph for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 2-satisfiability

On 29 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2-satisfiability, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 2-satisfiability can be used to schedule round-robin tournaments so that teams alternate between home and away games as much or as little as possible? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2-satisfiability. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2-satisfiability), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dual graph

Hello! Your submission of Dual graph at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Vazsonyi: Difference between revisions

Response to your comment "original research, folk etymology, contradicts sourced claims that it comes from the town name Nagyvázsony", a revision of my November 1, 2016 edit. Your conjecture does not refer to any specific sources therefore it's unverifiable. The place name you listed does not invite such interpretation. Common sense: Why should someone want to omit the "Nagy" (Great) part of the place name in deriving their last name? On the other hand, I am referring to the common practice of Hungarization of Slovak last names for which the Vážny - Vazsonyi offers a rather direct phonetic link. This deletion was overcautious on your part. It contradicts the common drive for knowledge that I believe is also the original spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It's sourced in at least one of the linked articles, where the name was new enough (chosen between the world wars) for an explanation to be available — see Andrew Vázsonyi. Additionally, for both Andrew and his cousin Vilmos, Slovak ancestry is not involved — they were Jews who changed their previous Jewish last names to avoid anti-semitic persecution. Anyway, disambiguation pages aren't supposed to have sources themselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to distinguish here between general and specific terms, as applied in linguistics. Your explanation substantiates the use of specific last names but not the general usage. My edit pointed to this fact which you chose to discard for reasons that sound rather dubious. Again, please, stick to the best academic standards in your editing. Thank you.

What general usage? We have a page listing three people, two of whom fit the explanation I gave. And if you're going to call on "best academic standards", the standards here for putting claims into Wikipedia involve substantiating them with sources, so where are yours? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You seem to disregard the elephant in the room. If there is one case out of three that does not support an argument, it is not generally true and other explanations are possible. Also, your arduous defense seems to be inspired by reasons coming from outside of the academia, to be more specific, the Jewish origin of the Vazsonyis. Anyway, this talk doesn't need to escalate any further. I will get back to you when I put my hands on better resources since by far not everything can be verified using the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Make racist (and false — as it turns out, I am not Jewish) insinuations and then flounce. Where did you learn to argue so persuasively? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

HTTP 404 page

I noticed that http://www.ap.uci.edu/distinctions/chancprof.html now returns HTTP 404. I will let you contact the website if you suspect that it can be restored. I added an archiveurl for now and other dinks on your BLP. If you want any undone but do not want to touch the BLP yourself, then feel free to ask me or otherwise do as you see fit.--Judtojud (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the missing page is not an accident and that they retired the notion of "Chancellor's Professor" so I took it out of the lead. If they restore the web page, then we can put the honorific back into the lead. WP:RS and all that, you know.--Judtojud (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

They have not retired the notion. The updated url appears to be http://ap.uci.edu/titles-of-distinction/chancellors-professors/ . So please restore this information. Also, your addition of Category:Wikipedia people, despite its accuracy, appears not to be based on reliably sourced material in the text of the article, which are not optional for biographies of living people even when you know that what you are writing is accurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. I added some cites. If we can use livejournal.com for your year of birth (after all that nonsense the God-king coyly put the community through for years and years about his DOB), I think what I found is good enough.--Judtojud (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)