![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Okay, I'll omit it altogether then (the DOB) but there are THOUSANDS of articles where the birthdate is not sourced so I don't see what difference it makes. I get the point of the guidelines and understand them, but why only apply them to certain articles and not all of them uniformly? Thanks. Snickers2686 ( talk) 06:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
209 (number). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
I warned the person adding the material; I probably should warn you that you have technically reverted 3 times today, as well... —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Because Category:Surfaces was categorized under Category:2 (number) (being two dimensional), I added Line (geometry) under Category:1 (number) and Volume under Category:3 (number) as 1 and 3 dimensional respectively. If you uncategorize Line, please also uncategorize Surfaces. Dpleibovitz ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
that was me. We have
WP:ACCESS suggests it should be "*:" or "*", and I think "*:" better indicates the connections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If it were not part of a bulleted list, it would be
start of paragraph about a property
rest of paragraph about a property
Because it is in a bulleted list, this should all be indented one level, under a single bullet:
It is incorrect to indent the rest of the paragraph at the formula level, and it is also incorrect to start a new bullet. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I just took a look at your photos. Wow! You do good work. Keep it up. I do a bit myself, but my oldest brother is the real artist and photographer in our family. We always had a darkroom in our house. He's an artist with some famous people as customers: Reagan, Loni Anderson (nude), etc. He primarily does portraits and large murals. Due to age (77) he's slowing down. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I wanted to thank you for all your help with Prime number. I'm still new to Wikipedia though and I was wondering if you had any advice for finding references for CS or math material. Due to the nature of the content it is quite difficult sometimes to find a particular bit of content on Google. For instance, I wanted to add to an article a bit about the advantage of insertion sort over selection sort when using non-sequential storage media, i.e. insertion sort requires a magnetic disk to travel less than selection sort. It is quite easy to prove and I'd have no problem adding the entire proof if needed, but alas, it would be a paragraph without an independent source as a reference Derek M ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, David! There has recently been renewed interest in mathematicians on WiR following this article by Mvitulli. As a result, we have decided to provide focus on mathematicians in February. You'll find the editathon page here. As you have been so active on women mathematicians, I though I should give you advance notice. We'll be sending out invitations soon but in the meantime, feel free to let your mathematician friends know about it. I hope you will find time to participate enthusiastically yourself.-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, great work with the Burkard Polster article! You rescued it and then you made it so much better. I wouldn't have known how to make 10% of the improvements that you made. DrVogel ( talk) 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the article Fernando Codá Marques at almost the level of a GA? (is this the name for those who have the green symbol at the top?) How to turn it into a Featured article? All the info is sourced and the article is in very good shape. Sorry for my English (I find it hard to write in this language)... There is a very high chance he will be a Fields Medalist this year (either he or Simon Brendle will win it is said "everywhere"). I think it would be nice if we had the article in even better shape before that happen, so that it can appear at the main page. What do you think? Best, —Viktor 189.6.185.63 ( talk) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my addition of the ratings template. I admit I don't know much about the importance of this article. But I believe it needs to have a ratings added. There are a lot, really a lot of math articles with missing ratings template, and by adding them we can help keep track of the progress of various math articles in the WikiProject Mathematics. So I strongly suggest you just change the ratings to B or C or whatever; just don't delete the ratings template. At least that's how I see it. I am currently working through a list of graph theory topics, adding such templates. I use low importance and stub/start levels by default according to how much references it has, plus the general length of the article, unless I recognize the importance right away, like Petersen graph for example. If you don't object to my reasoning, I would like to put the ratings template back there, though not right away. If you do object, explain why not, please! Thanks! -- TheBlueWizard ( talk) 03:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() New:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Prime number 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
Jakob.scholbach --
Jakob.scholbach (
talk)
15:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi David,
I looked up Dickson's History of Numbers vol 1 p215(Tonelli) and p218(Cipolla) and Dickson clearly shows that both modular square root algorithms can handle powers of prime modula (whereas the Wiki articles say they can only do prime modula).
I've updated the TALK pages of both articles with the relevant Dickson math, along with numeric runthroughs with Mathematica code.
However, I am not a professional mathematician so I hesitate to update the articles.
Perhaps yourself, or someone else in the Computer science field could update the relevant articles with this information from Dickson.
The articles in question are:
Endo999 ( talk) 02:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This is more about my feeling of your perception of my edits than about the quality of the article, therefore I came here. Since I got the impression that you were annoyed or at least bothered by my edits, I firstly want to apologize for my inadvertently destroying your ALT-caption. I should have been more attentive. Next I want to assure that I never wanted to cause any annoyance or bothering, I really only act in good faith, and only when I am reasonably sure about my reasons to edit. My introduction of "primorial" and its primes to the article was based on my impression that primorial itself were not included at all (outside of references), and the associated primes were only mentioned once (and linked) within an entry of a table. I regret not having had sources readily at my hands; and on this occasion I want to express my admiration of the work you have done to this article, not only regarding sourcing. Inserting my edit under "Other mathematical applications" was triggered by the paragraph about theorems by Sylow, Lagrange and Burnside re primes and finite groups, associating myself the construction of the primorial function with primes.
Finally, I hope my suggestions in the TP about the structure of the article reflect some rational thoughts, and are not considered as disturbing the expectably successful GA-review process. Congrats in advance. Purgy ( talk) 07:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Mark Barr 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
Wilhelmina Will --
Wilhelmina Will (
talk)
05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello - my edit on Therese Biedl created a valid external link to her profile at University of Waterloo. Your reversion of my edit restored a dead link. If you think there's a better valid URL for Ms. Biedl, then by all means change the link to that, but I believe her UW profile to be a good choice, and certainly better than the dead link you restored. Incidentally, I had a look and found her personal page, which is quite thin in terms of content and may not have been maintained for quite some time. I'm off doing the other work that I've been doing. Have a nice day, PK T(alk) 16:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Before:
After:
Generally I would try to write the opening of something like this in a way that would cause a typical lay reader to understand, after reading the first sentence, that it's about a mathematician. I don't think the first sentence above accomplishes that, so I changed it to the second. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Distributional_calculus
On 18 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Heinrich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian mathematician Katherine Heinrich was the first female president of the Canadian Mathematical Society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katherine Heinrich. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Katherine Heinrich), 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.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I've kept the info and the source, just moved it in line with MOS. What's your problem? Giant Snowman 17:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Annalisa Crannell 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!
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
The article
Prime number you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Prime number 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
Jakob.scholbach --
Jakob.scholbach (
talk)
15:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Scholarly Barnstar | |
I just wanted to chime in with a note of gratitude. Excellent work! XOR'easter ( talk) 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Alexandrov's uniqueness 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk)
23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Any chance you'd take another look at the DYK nomination for Romulea tortuosa? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The article
Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk)
11:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Excellent work on Moore. What's often overlooked is how powerful he was at the University of Texas, not only in the Math Department either. And still is in a way because of all those influential descendants. Mary Ellen Rudin's comments on him are heartbreaking, how she loved him and explains away his bad behavior, like you might with your own father. The claims of anachronism and "man of his times" are particularly off-base, considering how many Texans throughout the twentieth century fought for black rights, unlike the Yankee-originating Robert E. Lee Moore. Lyndon Johnson is exhibit A.
Another good source is Remarkable Mathematicians, by Ioan James. He talks about how Bing and others refused to come to Texas as long as Moore was there.
MikeB17 ( talk) 15:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
...but you might have something to day about WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Evidence_of_canvassing_at_AfD/British_Independence_Day. E Eng 03:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
While I've got you, what do you think about [2]? E Eng 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David,
just some geometry question out of any context: Have you possibly encountered a truncation of the cube like the one shown? And if so, do you know a name? (If not, I tend to call this a
concertina cube.) The 26 vertices of this solid correspond to the 26
predicates with 3 places (and those of the n-dimensional equivalents to predicates with n places). I thought, if this is a thing, you would probably know it. Greetings,
Watchduck (
quack)
00:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, would you mind keeping an eye on the Fields Medal article. I am afraid that this dispute may escalate beyond my abilities to handle it alone. -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 18:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
James G. Howes was deleted because of a prod. Could you please restore it so I can bulk it up? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for noticing the damage I did to list coloring -- I can only assume it was a copy-paste error on my part, or that I was intending to make further edits to that sentence and forgot. For some reason I did not get a ping when you mentioned me, unfortunately. Second, about the potential sock-puppet, I think it is worth running up the flagpole: not just that Taribuk has edited topics about Serbia but there is actual overlap at Josip Pečarić and its talk page, and at Talk:Nikola Tesla. (I have to go teach so I can't do it myself right now.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
On 8 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Annalisa Crannell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Annalisa Crannell brings chopsticks to art galleries as a tool for finding vanishing points? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Annalisa Crannell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Annalisa Crannell), 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) 00:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Your reversions of the category Jewish psychoanalysts, Mr.David Eppstein, are unjust, provocative and incorrect and smell of Antisemitism, which are totally contrary to the values of Wikipedia Ewan2 ( talk) 02:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I think I've addressed your concerns. I'd appreciate it if you could take another look. -- JohnPomeranz ( talk) 19:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein! Sorry about my misreading of that sentence in Wythoff array, and thanks for the ES with your reversion; I must have mentally absorbed “occurs” into “recurrence“ while reading it. Either that or I’m just plain losing my marbles …— Odysseus 147 9 01:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Eppstein,
My name is Yaotl and I am a founding member of Aztlan Underground. We recently noted that our Wikipedia page was deleted. Although we did not initially post it, as it was posted in 2001 the year of Wikipedias launch, we were honored to be included. Since, we have been attempting to update members and accomplishments but the submissions to edit the page never remained. Regardsless, we were happy with what had been written. After reading the reaons for deletion, we feel we can provide you with the needed criteria for WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. We have an extensive history and it is too much to detail here. However, if you request it we can. Ultimately, if you could allow us the opportunity to establish the critera for undeletion we would be ecstatic. Please advise.
Kind regards.
In the spirit of humanity and love,
Yaotl1 Yaotl1 ( talk) 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response and advice. It is duly noted. Kind regards, Yaotl ----Yaotl1
Smalley and Kobinka are Christians according to their wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Malfatti circles 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
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David,
You asked why I added the full name ( [3]): Because the notion of our MOS in general is to avoid abbreviations (although there are exceptions), and because providing full names is desirable for maximum accuracy and to reduce ambiguity (now or in the future).
Interesting read: https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/news.html
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 23:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: this page, per MOS:DABRL: In the following (made-up) examples, if the entry with the architectural motif is judged to be appropriate for a future article, and assuming that the fictitious "flibbygibby" is mentioned in its respectively linked article, it is considered a valid entry. If "flibbygibby" is not mentioned in the noodle article, or there is no linked article at all, as in the toy example, it is not a valid entry; therefore, only the entry for the architectural motif can include a red link.
Flibbygibby may refer to:
|
Why are you leaving it in the third, unacceptable style? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The article
Malfatti circles you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Malfatti circles 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
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
09:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I wonder if you might have seen my requested addition on the Predictive analytics talk page last week, where I'd pinged you on account of your prior editing of the subject. Because of my COI, I won't edit the article directly; would you be willing to consider making the change? Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently we do use search engine results, see the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). And criteria 1. Surprised me. GS is misnamed by the way, a lot of crackpots show up in searches, stuff that is clearly not scholarly. As an exMple, ive been working on Bill Warner (Political Islam) and a search on his name and Islam turns up mainly rubbish that we'd never use. Including his website. How does that get there? Doug Weller talk 08:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to take a look at my recent expansion of International Sanitary Conferences and start a new similar International Statistical Congresses article (and nominate it for DYK)? Basically as I see it is the 19th century version of your creation List of Fellows of the American Statistical Association. I first got to know about this while researching for Alfred Legoyt years ago. You can use the following article (I can't access it) for source:
Best regards. Solomon 7968 20:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
On 26 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Nomura, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mary Nomura, a singer who was sent to the Manzanar concentration camp as an orphaned teenager, became known as the "songbird of Manzanar"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Nomura. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Mary Nomura), 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.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David - I reverted your edit, rather than simply delinking it, not to get into an edit war, but simply so I could send you a brief rationale in the edit summary, so you would know why I was delinking it. Sorry you got offended by that. Wasn't my intention. Onel5969 TT me 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emily Riehl, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Emily Riehl, former bassist for the band Unstraight, wrote about "unstraightening" in her research as a professional mathematician? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Riehl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), 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, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
WSJ article - is it real? Atsme 📞 📧 02:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
Hi David -- do you know anything about the history of Bayesian networks? Someone has been trying to create an article at Draft:Richard Neapolitan for months now and keeps getting bounced by the wall that is Articles for Creation reviewers. There has been the suggestion that the creator might be Neapolitan. An expert opinion on whether he's truly 'seminal' would be of value. Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Okay, I'll omit it altogether then (the DOB) but there are THOUSANDS of articles where the birthdate is not sourced so I don't see what difference it makes. I get the point of the guidelines and understand them, but why only apply them to certain articles and not all of them uniformly? Thanks. Snickers2686 ( talk) 06:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
209 (number). Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
I warned the person adding the material; I probably should warn you that you have technically reverted 3 times today, as well... —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Because Category:Surfaces was categorized under Category:2 (number) (being two dimensional), I added Line (geometry) under Category:1 (number) and Volume under Category:3 (number) as 1 and 3 dimensional respectively. If you uncategorize Line, please also uncategorize Surfaces. Dpleibovitz ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
that was me. We have
WP:ACCESS suggests it should be "*:" or "*", and I think "*:" better indicates the connections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
If it were not part of a bulleted list, it would be
start of paragraph about a property
rest of paragraph about a property
Because it is in a bulleted list, this should all be indented one level, under a single bullet:
It is incorrect to indent the rest of the paragraph at the formula level, and it is also incorrect to start a new bullet. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I just took a look at your photos. Wow! You do good work. Keep it up. I do a bit myself, but my oldest brother is the real artist and photographer in our family. We always had a darkroom in our house. He's an artist with some famous people as customers: Reagan, Loni Anderson (nude), etc. He primarily does portraits and large murals. Due to age (77) he's slowing down. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I wanted to thank you for all your help with Prime number. I'm still new to Wikipedia though and I was wondering if you had any advice for finding references for CS or math material. Due to the nature of the content it is quite difficult sometimes to find a particular bit of content on Google. For instance, I wanted to add to an article a bit about the advantage of insertion sort over selection sort when using non-sequential storage media, i.e. insertion sort requires a magnetic disk to travel less than selection sort. It is quite easy to prove and I'd have no problem adding the entire proof if needed, but alas, it would be a paragraph without an independent source as a reference Derek M ( talk) 03:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, David! There has recently been renewed interest in mathematicians on WiR following this article by Mvitulli. As a result, we have decided to provide focus on mathematicians in February. You'll find the editathon page here. As you have been so active on women mathematicians, I though I should give you advance notice. We'll be sending out invitations soon but in the meantime, feel free to let your mathematician friends know about it. I hope you will find time to participate enthusiastically yourself.-- Ipigott ( talk) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, great work with the Burkard Polster article! You rescued it and then you made it so much better. I wouldn't have known how to make 10% of the improvements that you made. DrVogel ( talk) 14:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the article Fernando Codá Marques at almost the level of a GA? (is this the name for those who have the green symbol at the top?) How to turn it into a Featured article? All the info is sourced and the article is in very good shape. Sorry for my English (I find it hard to write in this language)... There is a very high chance he will be a Fields Medalist this year (either he or Simon Brendle will win it is said "everywhere"). I think it would be nice if we had the article in even better shape before that happen, so that it can appear at the main page. What do you think? Best, —Viktor 189.6.185.63 ( talk) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my addition of the ratings template. I admit I don't know much about the importance of this article. But I believe it needs to have a ratings added. There are a lot, really a lot of math articles with missing ratings template, and by adding them we can help keep track of the progress of various math articles in the WikiProject Mathematics. So I strongly suggest you just change the ratings to B or C or whatever; just don't delete the ratings template. At least that's how I see it. I am currently working through a list of graph theory topics, adding such templates. I use low importance and stub/start levels by default according to how much references it has, plus the general length of the article, unless I recognize the importance right away, like Petersen graph for example. If you don't object to my reasoning, I would like to put the ratings template back there, though not right away. If you do object, explain why not, please! Thanks! -- TheBlueWizard ( talk) 03:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() New:
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Prime number 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
Jakob.scholbach --
Jakob.scholbach (
talk)
15:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi David,
I looked up Dickson's History of Numbers vol 1 p215(Tonelli) and p218(Cipolla) and Dickson clearly shows that both modular square root algorithms can handle powers of prime modula (whereas the Wiki articles say they can only do prime modula).
I've updated the TALK pages of both articles with the relevant Dickson math, along with numeric runthroughs with Mathematica code.
However, I am not a professional mathematician so I hesitate to update the articles.
Perhaps yourself, or someone else in the Computer science field could update the relevant articles with this information from Dickson.
The articles in question are:
Endo999 ( talk) 02:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
This is more about my feeling of your perception of my edits than about the quality of the article, therefore I came here. Since I got the impression that you were annoyed or at least bothered by my edits, I firstly want to apologize for my inadvertently destroying your ALT-caption. I should have been more attentive. Next I want to assure that I never wanted to cause any annoyance or bothering, I really only act in good faith, and only when I am reasonably sure about my reasons to edit. My introduction of "primorial" and its primes to the article was based on my impression that primorial itself were not included at all (outside of references), and the associated primes were only mentioned once (and linked) within an entry of a table. I regret not having had sources readily at my hands; and on this occasion I want to express my admiration of the work you have done to this article, not only regarding sourcing. Inserting my edit under "Other mathematical applications" was triggered by the paragraph about theorems by Sylow, Lagrange and Burnside re primes and finite groups, associating myself the construction of the primorial function with primes.
Finally, I hope my suggestions in the TP about the structure of the article reflect some rational thoughts, and are not considered as disturbing the expectably successful GA-review process. Congrats in advance. Purgy ( talk) 07:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Mark Barr 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
Wilhelmina Will --
Wilhelmina Will (
talk)
05:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello - my edit on Therese Biedl created a valid external link to her profile at University of Waterloo. Your reversion of my edit restored a dead link. If you think there's a better valid URL for Ms. Biedl, then by all means change the link to that, but I believe her UW profile to be a good choice, and certainly better than the dead link you restored. Incidentally, I had a look and found her personal page, which is quite thin in terms of content and may not have been maintained for quite some time. I'm off doing the other work that I've been doing. Have a nice day, PK T(alk) 16:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Before:
After:
Generally I would try to write the opening of something like this in a way that would cause a typical lay reader to understand, after reading the first sentence, that it's about a mathematician. I don't think the first sentence above accomplishes that, so I changed it to the second. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Distributional_calculus
On 18 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Heinrich, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian mathematician Katherine Heinrich was the first female president of the Canadian Mathematical Society? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katherine Heinrich. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Katherine Heinrich), 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.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I've kept the info and the source, just moved it in line with MOS. What's your problem? Giant Snowman 17:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Annalisa Crannell 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!
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
20:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Bayesian—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 14:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() ![]() ![]()
| ||
(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging |
The article
Prime number you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Prime number 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
Jakob.scholbach --
Jakob.scholbach (
talk)
15:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Scholarly Barnstar | |
I just wanted to chime in with a note of gratitude. Excellent work! XOR'easter ( talk) 16:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC) |
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Alexandrov's uniqueness 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk)
23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Any chance you'd take another look at the DYK nomination for Romulea tortuosa? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
The article
Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Alexandrov's uniqueness theorem 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
Mike Christie --
Mike Christie (
talk)
11:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Excellent work on Moore. What's often overlooked is how powerful he was at the University of Texas, not only in the Math Department either. And still is in a way because of all those influential descendants. Mary Ellen Rudin's comments on him are heartbreaking, how she loved him and explains away his bad behavior, like you might with your own father. The claims of anachronism and "man of his times" are particularly off-base, considering how many Texans throughout the twentieth century fought for black rights, unlike the Yankee-originating Robert E. Lee Moore. Lyndon Johnson is exhibit A.
Another good source is Remarkable Mathematicians, by Ioan James. He talks about how Bing and others refused to come to Texas as long as Moore was there.
MikeB17 ( talk) 15:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
...but you might have something to day about WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Evidence_of_canvassing_at_AfD/British_Independence_Day. E Eng 03:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
While I've got you, what do you think about [2]? E Eng 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David,
just some geometry question out of any context: Have you possibly encountered a truncation of the cube like the one shown? And if so, do you know a name? (If not, I tend to call this a
concertina cube.) The 26 vertices of this solid correspond to the 26
predicates with 3 places (and those of the n-dimensional equivalents to predicates with n places). I thought, if this is a thing, you would probably know it. Greetings,
Watchduck (
quack)
00:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, would you mind keeping an eye on the Fields Medal article. I am afraid that this dispute may escalate beyond my abilities to handle it alone. -- Bill Cherowitzo ( talk) 18:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
James G. Howes was deleted because of a prod. Could you please restore it so I can bulk it up? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for noticing the damage I did to list coloring -- I can only assume it was a copy-paste error on my part, or that I was intending to make further edits to that sentence and forgot. For some reason I did not get a ping when you mentioned me, unfortunately. Second, about the potential sock-puppet, I think it is worth running up the flagpole: not just that Taribuk has edited topics about Serbia but there is actual overlap at Josip Pečarić and its talk page, and at Talk:Nikola Tesla. (I have to go teach so I can't do it myself right now.) -- JBL ( talk) 21:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
On 8 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Annalisa Crannell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Annalisa Crannell brings chopsticks to art galleries as a tool for finding vanishing points? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Annalisa Crannell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Annalisa Crannell), 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) 00:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Your reversions of the category Jewish psychoanalysts, Mr.David Eppstein, are unjust, provocative and incorrect and smell of Antisemitism, which are totally contrary to the values of Wikipedia Ewan2 ( talk) 02:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I think I've addressed your concerns. I'd appreciate it if you could take another look. -- JohnPomeranz ( talk) 19:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein! Sorry about my misreading of that sentence in Wythoff array, and thanks for the ES with your reversion; I must have mentally absorbed “occurs” into “recurrence“ while reading it. Either that or I’m just plain losing my marbles …— Odysseus 147 9 01:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Eppstein,
My name is Yaotl and I am a founding member of Aztlan Underground. We recently noted that our Wikipedia page was deleted. Although we did not initially post it, as it was posted in 2001 the year of Wikipedias launch, we were honored to be included. Since, we have been attempting to update members and accomplishments but the submissions to edit the page never remained. Regardsless, we were happy with what had been written. After reading the reaons for deletion, we feel we can provide you with the needed criteria for WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. We have an extensive history and it is too much to detail here. However, if you request it we can. Ultimately, if you could allow us the opportunity to establish the critera for undeletion we would be ecstatic. Please advise.
Kind regards.
In the spirit of humanity and love,
Yaotl1 Yaotl1 ( talk) 18:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift response and advice. It is duly noted. Kind regards, Yaotl ----Yaotl1
Smalley and Kobinka are Christians according to their wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandPhilosophe ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Malfatti circles 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
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David,
You asked why I added the full name ( [3]): Because the notion of our MOS in general is to avoid abbreviations (although there are exceptions), and because providing full names is desirable for maximum accuracy and to reduce ambiguity (now or in the future).
Interesting read: https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/news.html
-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 23:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Re: this page, per MOS:DABRL: In the following (made-up) examples, if the entry with the architectural motif is judged to be appropriate for a future article, and assuming that the fictitious "flibbygibby" is mentioned in its respectively linked article, it is considered a valid entry. If "flibbygibby" is not mentioned in the noodle article, or there is no linked article at all, as in the toy example, it is not a valid entry; therefore, only the entry for the architectural motif can include a red link.
Flibbygibby may refer to:
|
Why are you leaving it in the third, unacceptable style? ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 05:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The article
Malfatti circles you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Malfatti circles 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
Chiswick Chap --
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
09:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I wonder if you might have seen my requested addition on the Predictive analytics talk page last week, where I'd pinged you on account of your prior editing of the subject. Because of my COI, I won't edit the article directly; would you be willing to consider making the change? Best, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Apparently we do use search engine results, see the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). And criteria 1. Surprised me. GS is misnamed by the way, a lot of crackpots show up in searches, stuff that is clearly not scholarly. As an exMple, ive been working on Bill Warner (Political Islam) and a search on his name and Islam turns up mainly rubbish that we'd never use. Including his website. How does that get there? Doug Weller talk 08:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Would you be able to take a look at my recent expansion of International Sanitary Conferences and start a new similar International Statistical Congresses article (and nominate it for DYK)? Basically as I see it is the 19th century version of your creation List of Fellows of the American Statistical Association. I first got to know about this while researching for Alfred Legoyt years ago. You can use the following article (I can't access it) for source:
Best regards. Solomon 7968 20:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
On 26 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Nomura, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mary Nomura, a singer who was sent to the Manzanar concentration camp as an orphaned teenager, became known as the "songbird of Manzanar"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Nomura. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Mary Nomura), 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.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi David - I reverted your edit, rather than simply delinking it, not to get into an edit war, but simply so I could send you a brief rationale in the edit summary, so you would know why I was delinking it. Sorry you got offended by that. Wasn't my intention. Onel5969 TT me 20:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | On 28 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Emily Riehl, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Emily Riehl, former bassist for the band Unstraight, wrote about "unstraightening" in her research as a professional mathematician? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Riehl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, daily totals), 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, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
WSJ article - is it real? Atsme 📞 📧 02:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
![]()
| ||
To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list or
Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: |
Hi David -- do you know anything about the history of Bayesian networks? Someone has been trying to create an article at Draft:Richard Neapolitan for months now and keeps getting bounced by the wall that is Articles for Creation reviewers. There has been the suggestion that the creator might be Neapolitan. An expert opinion on whether he's truly 'seminal' would be of value. Cheers, Espresso Addict ( talk) 04:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)