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.)

Fixing Newswire sources

[edit]

Hello David Eppstein, I hope you are well. On the page MyRadar, you recently tagged each of the Newswire sources as unreliable. I believe I was able to use them in an unbiased manner, but what do you think? I can remove them and their associated claims if need but, but I feel they still add some important information which could be lost if they were removed. I am committed to making the article the best it can be, so whatever you think is the best move forward I can do. Cheers! Johnson524 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are press releases from a company involved in the product. Being collected by a press release scraper site does not make them any more reliable than if they were on the company web site. They do not meet WP:RS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, so do you want me to remove all of these sources, or is there any way this information can still be used? Johnson524 19:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it to be a Good Article nominee, everything in the article needs to be supported by reliable sources. So removing them would be best, to make clear that nothing in the article is based on them. But that may also mean removing some information if it cannot be found in better sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY Sounds good, thank you for the advice. Cheers! Johnson524 22:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acyclics

[edit]

Thanks for catching that about math vs. cs. I mistook the commas. Zaslav (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Stein

[edit]

Hi David, I'm trying to write an article on Maya Stein. Could you please take a look at User:McKay/sandbox and let me know if I can do better? I'll add a photo if Maya agrees. Feel free to edit there. Cheers, Brendan. McKay (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made some small changes. It's more or less at the start-class that I usually aim for in new articles, but there are still some unsourced claims, particularly the postdoc. Also, Diestel should probably have an article. There was a bad one created in late 2021 (in worse shape than your current draft) but it was moved to draft space and subsequently deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't mention her middle name? It is Jakobine (according to the title tag here). And if you google "maya jakobine stein" you may be able to find more about her. Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's something we can sometimes omit per WP:BLPPRIVACY. But given its prominent mention on her home page that may not be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Well, I dunno, it is something to think about. I'll leave it up to McKay. Polygnotus (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS New article: Reinhard Diestel. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Stein. McKay (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this! I agree it was ready to promote to mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maya asked me to write "German". I'll ask again if she would prefer "German–Chilean". Incidentally, please see Talk:Maya Stein. McKay (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker here. Pointing out that a good option when nationality is fuzzy or disputed is sometimes to just leave it out. Also, David Eppstein, the "use dmy dates" template that you added doesn't seem to be reformatting dates. Is it doing what you intended? It looks better to me without the "cs1=ly" parameter (but I'm not sure that I'm not missing something). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use dmy dates + cs1=ly means: Use dmy dates for publication dates but numeric YYYY-MM-DD dates for access dates and archive dates. That is the effect I see in the references. It is my default preference in date formatting (modulo nationality of subject for dmy vs mdy) but your mileage may vary. There is only one publication date visible, and I see it in the correct format: "Guacolda Antoine Lazzerini (13 May 2022)". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Arrangement of lines

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arrangement of lines 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 Electrou -- Electrou (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding inclusion of new material in the Kobon Triangle Problem

[edit]

Is there a specific pipeline for something like the k=19 or k=21 arrangements, which have very clear visual proofs, to be accessible for citation? For example, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Would an image of an arrangement with clear visual properties fitting the description fall under this policy, if it were within a valid primary source?

Personally, I would have liked to have known that a perfect arrangement had been found months ago for k=21. This isn't to say the rules are wrong for keeping that knowledge from me or anything, I understand the purpose of proper procedure, I am simply wondering what options are available for such a procedure in this specific case, given that images of the optimal arrangements for k=19 and 21 do exist online already. Thank you. BagLuke (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're already citing OEIS, one possibility would be to try to persuade them to extend their sequence to include the new known values. It might help for the arrangements to be shown on some other web site that OEIS could link to. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the help! BagLuke (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Use dmy dates|...}} without consensus?

[edit]

In the article Boolean algebra I noticed that the dates in the references were displayed in the format yyyy-mm-dd. I thought —don't know why— that the dmy format was more convenient, so I changed the overall display accordingly.

You reverted my edit with the comment "Please do not change date formats without consensus".

I apologize for my action; I did not know the rule. However, I now have a few questions:

  1. Is the yyyy-mm-dd format preferred over the dmy format?
  2. Otherwise, with whom must the consensus be reached?
  3. Is it allowed to add a new line {{Use dmy dates|...}} to an article where dates are displayed in different (heterogeneous) formats without prior consensus?

Marc Schroeder (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No standard date format is preferred over others except in cases where a topic has strong national ties which cause one of dmy or mdy to be preferred over the other. Standard date formats for references include:
  • Everything spelled out, day before month (dmy)
  • Publication dates spelled out, day before month, access dates numeric (dmy + cs1-dates=ly)
  • Everything spelled out, month before day (mdy)
  • Publication dates spelled out, month before day, access dates numeric (mdy + cs1-dates=ly)
Having a different format for publication dates and access dates can be helpful as a way of calling more attention to the part of the reference that is more about the actual reference and less about the Wikipedia article editing history.
Despite our MOS not specifying a preference among these, it does specify that once a format is established it should not be changed without good reason. This is mostly to prevent the churn that would happen if many gnomes or bots had conflicting positions on what the best format is and went around changing formats back and forth.
I think everything numeric is also a valid option (and happens to be the one set in the Boolean algebra article with cs1-dates=y rather than ly). The "Acceptable date formats" table in MOS:DATE has a footnote [c] saying that numeric dates are ok in references as one of several "limited situations where brevity is helpful". I don't particularly like this choice; my own preference is to spell out the publication dates, at least. But since it appears to be a valid choice, I don't think it should be changed without discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Marc Schroeder (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding the notability of a computer scientist

[edit]

As a result of a recent BLP discussion, I noted this autobio of a computer scientist, Gabriel Wainer. I am tempted to take the article to AfD, however I wasn't sure how to judge his citation count/h-index [1], which is not insubstantial. However I know that these counts/h index are much higher in computer science than in some other scientific fields, so I wanted to ask you whether you thought he passed PROF on citation metrics (relative to other computer science academics) before I potentially wasted my (and others) time at AfD. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has multiple claims to notability among which the least ambiguous is editor-in-chief of Simulation (journal) (WP:PROF#C8). ACM Distinguished Speaker [2] is also indicative although not definitive. I think he is likely to pass an AfD and wouldn't try. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thank for the insight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notability of authors and professors

[edit]

Hello @David Eppstein sir, i want clear some doubts, first of all if an academic person becomes interim Dean of a University for a very short temporary period then should he will be eligible and have equal notability like the permanent dean. Second if an author have one or two books reviewed by New york times makes him notable enogh to have standalone article on Wikipedia. Thanks sir TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deans are not automatically notable, interim or otherwise. One book is not enough for me for WP:AUTHOR notability. Two authored (not edited or coauthored) books, each having more than one reliably published review, would be enough to make a borderline case for notability for me. Others might disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir i am talking about Michael Stein article , does his interview in that Peabody award-winning radio makes him notable. TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews generally do not count towards notability. Also see WP:CANVASS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Instant-runoff voting regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Instant-runoff voting.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

(180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Talk:Pyramid (geometry)

[edit]

Opinions on this? I have no idea I have to follow every detail on all MOS. Writing with different marking and with different purpose. But the user adding bunch of apostrophes to each terms of pyramids, and to each examples of pyramids. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I definitely think the italics are overused in the current version. Each term should be italicized at most once, not each time it is introduced. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, are there any alternative things instead of italics and boldfaces? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like, the kind of text you get without adding any formatting markup? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the answer is yes. If you want to get that kind of formatting, just don't use the markup to make things italic or boldface. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Your GA nomination of Binary tiling

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binary tiling 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 DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Arrangement of lines

[edit]

The article Arrangement of lines 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:Arrangement of lines and Talk:Arrangement of lines/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Electrou -- Electrou (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Binary tiling

[edit]

The article Binary tiling 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:Binary tiling and Talk:Binary tiling/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Binary tiling

[edit]

The article Binary tiling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Binary tiling for comments about the article, and Talk:Binary tiling/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DoctorWhoFan91 -- DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Algebra

[edit]

I am not a nominator of FA Algebra, but it seems the article is already in trouble after being promoted. Do you think it is worth it, or I should say, do you have an opinion, to add incomplete tag with the reason the discussion that has been widely problematic, even thought you have not claimed the support of the status? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are already enough competent and opinionated editors in the talk page there that one more might add confusion rather than light. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the article is "complete", that notice does not seem helpful, as the only thing it provides in the way of specifics is a pointer to a long discussion, and many if not most of the issues in that thread seem to have been addressed already. (Some of those issues may also come down to matters of taste.) XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested

[edit]

Hi David,

you are kindly invited to provide third opinion in the following dispute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tercer#Quantum_entanglement_lead

Thank you so much in advance for your time. 217.118.83.168 (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noether

[edit]

I'm not asking you to agree with the critique, or even to accept that it is valid. But I am going to ask that you refrain from making it personal; it's not helping. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error

[edit]

I have tried installed User:Dedhert.Jr/ArticleQuality.js per Talk:Pentagonal pyramid/GA1. But it seems it does not work at all. The same way for User:Dedhert.Jr/common.js. If these links are not working at all, can you delete them? Many thanks. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to add that line to your common.js, not just create a separate js file under a different name. Otherwise the Wikimedia software won't know to run it. As for deleting your user files, if you decide you want to do that I'd be happy to, or adding {{db-u1}} to them should get the attention of someone else who can do it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ArticleQuality.js? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both. They are totally useless after I installed them, or should I say, it is not working at all. Maybe I am just not smart enough to do so. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Ok, both gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SR 55 about Riverside

[edit]

I know SR 55 does not go through Riverside, But it’s one of the cities listed on SR 91 east at the northern end of SR 55; Then explain how Riverside is listed on such freeways such as the 405 and 5 freeways that have Riverside listed on SR 55 north. Also, Newport Beach is suppose to listed on SR 55 south70.93.208.40 (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's listed on a different highway. How relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I admit it, I checked the Google Maps Street View and no control city was listed. Kylercorpus2 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the 73 freeway Kylercorpus2 (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Eppstein&oldid=1255855593"