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. |
Hi David, Thank you for trying to keep wikipedia as true as can be. Unfortunately you removed truthful content. Please contact Scott Aaronson if you have any questions regarding our correspondence.
Scott's Contact Info: Scott Aaronson Computer Science Department, Gates Dell Complex 2317 Speedway University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
Sincerely, ++ Jason Michael Blind
Jason Michael Blind President, Owner, Founder, Manager MRG Labs LLC Costa Mesa, CA 92627-2022 909.489.9150 mrg.labs.llc@gmail.com jasonblind@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonblind ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I was visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Schaal when I noticed that you said here that by copying material into Wikipedia, the webpage owner has in effect given us permission to use the content. That's not correct, because we have no evidence that the person who added it is the copyright holder, and even if we did, we need proof that they are releasing it under a compatible license. The webpage is marked as "Copyrights 2018 Stefan Schaal". An OTRS ticket is required. There's more information on this topic at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, you edited the WP article of MDPI in the past and currently, the article contains misinformation in the lead section that is not in line with WP’s guidelines for creating a MOS:LEAD. As I understand, this section should give emphasis to material that reflects its importance to the topic. As I am an employee of MDPI, I was asked by other editors not to make changes directly to the article but post on the Talk:MDPI page. However, so far there have been no comment to the following change proposals. Can I ask for your help or advice?
1) The Beall issue still features prominently in the lead section, despite the fact that MDPI had nothing to do with Beall’s decision to take down his list. MDPI was added end 2014 and, after we contacted him, removed shortly thereafter in 2015. We had no reason to spend time and effort to get his list taken down years after he had removed MDPI for the list. Another open access publisher may have been in contact with his university, but I do not know the details: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/ Therefore, I would suggest that the Beall issue is either discussed in the main body (removed from the lead section), or that after the sentence “Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list due to pressure on his institution from various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI", the sentence is added: "Beall’s supervisor and institution both refuted Beall's claims that there had been any pressure to take down his list", referring to the following source where Beall's former supervisor, Shea Swauger, clarifies that "CU Denver disagrees with Jeffrey Beall’s assertion that he was pressured by the university to take down his website, scholaryoa.com, earlier this year": https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435.
2) The information in the lead section on the data breach is very misleading, as the e-mail addresses and contact information of authors, editors and board members are publicly available on the MDPI.com website (the e-mail addresses of authors are accessible on the article page, as well as those of editors and editorial board members). We also publish the names of reviewers regularly in the journal. The lead section in its current form gives the impression that sensitive data was stolen and that this is a key issue for MDPI. A lead section should highlight the most important information about a subject. This is simply not the case – a weak source was used to add negative information, without the subject even being discussed in the body of the article. Therefore, I suggest to remove the data breach information from the lead, and move it to a separate section and adding the sentence: "No data of a sensitive nature was impacted and the contact information of authors, editors and board members are made publicly available on the MDPI website per default", referring to the following source: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites
I am really struggling with the fact that WP is trusted as a source but, at present, contains misinformation. Any help or advice you can provide is much appreciated. ErskineCer ( talk) 07:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Working through the WIR list of rejected AfC drafts, I came across Draft:Sue Mi Terry, which I rewrote to show a pass of WP:SCHOLAR#C7 as a widely-quoted expert. But I'm not sure if a think tank fellow with a government background, even with a PhD and some time doing university teaching/research, qualifies for WP:SCHOLAR notability criteria, and I didn't see any specific discussion of this issue on the Talk archives for the academic notability guidelines, so I thought I'd ask you: is WP:SCHOLAR#C7 the way to go here? Any help appreciated, and apologies if this is the wrong way to go about it. Bakazaka ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
On 11 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evgenia Arbugaeva, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that photographer Evgenia Arbugaeva won the trust of a Siberian mammoth-tusk hunter by stitching up his injured hand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evgenia Arbugaeva. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Evgenia Arbugaeva), 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, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for this edit; I just bumped the wrong button with my mouse. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Three new topics for
WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I just finished writing her biography, but I am totally confused about the mathematics referencing. Fairly sure my translation from Italian was accurate, but not how that relates to field-specific language and concepts. Would greatly appreciate your review to see if I muddled it too badly. Unfortunately, the only biography in English is inaccessible to me, but I noted it for further reading. Thank you. SusunW ( talk) 21:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein, there has finally been a response to your DYK review here. Please return when you get a chance to see whether the issues you raised have all been addressed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear David Eppstein
I have made amendments on Ptolemy's theorem in wiki. My reference come from American Mathematical Monthly 1951 Volume 58, Issue 4 Normal Trigrade and Cyclic Quadrilateral with Integral Sides and Diagonals
Please check and don't revert my amendment again. I am sure that my amendment is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhung ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. The converse of Ptolemy's theorem is always true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhung ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what this [1] has done for DriveTime (campaign launched March 7 [2]) but it's done wonders for Carmichael's conjecture and, to a lesser extent, for the Carmichael_function. (Use the log view.) E Eng 05:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
David - we have a guy doing 6D modelling and creating a picture of the Consani-S Quintic just for "your" article at #wikiwomeninred Victuallers ( talk) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Concerning your recent revert of my edit, I understand and claim responsibility for the broken links. Aside from that though, does
WP:HARV not also indicate that <ref>
tags should not be used in an article which uses Harvard/parenthetical referencing?
d
ross (
c ·
@)
18:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BenKuykendall ( talk) 21:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runawayangel ( talk • contribs)
There are myriad problems with that article. Web search on subject yields nothing. AfD is likely.-- Galassi ( talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
On 1 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isosceles triangle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that decorative patterns using isosceles triangles date back to the Early Neolithic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isosceles triangle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Isosceles triangle), 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) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
David, The infomation contained here, http://www.wikicu.com/Graciela_Chichilnisky , dated 26 October 2008, is correct, the information contained in Gracielas Wikipedia litigation section is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobNYC ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, Thanks for your comment at the Citation bot page ( [5]). While we differ somewhat in regard to when exactly the publisher info can be removed (I think the consensus is that it should only be suppressed when it is identical to the journal name - and IMHO technically this should ideally happen in the citation template, not by not specifying the parameter, so that the meta data remains intact), but there are different styles, needs and opinions (and WP:CITEVAR), and I therefore completely agree with your main point that this is nothing that should be systematically combed one way and removed by a bot. I share your concern and it is my observation that some users are using the bot as an "excuse" to enforce a certain style they prefer (I have even seen one editor edit-warring over it). (I don't know why but I remember having run into questionable edits by this bot only since a couple of months.) The publisher issue has been reported several times recently (f.e. [6]), but the complaints were not taken seriously by the talk page maintainer, instead the threads were archived away as "no issue" even in the middle of unresolved and/or ongoing discussions. In addition to the publisher issue, the bot is also performing all kinds of other questionable changes (see talk) - to an extent that I don't think it is still adhering to WP:BOTPOL nor within the limits of the original tasks it was once approved for. (It also seems as if the bot can be used by users anonymously, but I have only read remarks about it, not checked it myself.) Several editors (including myself) have expressed their concerns about the damage created on the talk page recently to no avail. I am not the only one who has considered filing a thread at ANI to stop the bot and have all its questionable functionality removed, but I don't at present have the time for the overhead involved and would prefer not to report other editors there if avoidable. I would appreciate, however, if an admin could check and evaluate the bot's talk page and archives closely and take the actions found necessary. Thanks for your consideration. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for leaving that test on my user sub page: it was a mistake that I regret. I apologize even more because I did not mean to have User:John Cline/Outhouse deleted. If I may beg an indulgence, and promise not to do it again, could I please have the page restored? I have a lot of man-hours of useful research stored in that page's history and I hope to find uses for it, for some time to come. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at the recent edit on Wolfram axiom? The text that was removed was certainly clunky, but I can't judge its relevance. Thanks, and may your middle always be excluded, Drmies ( talk) 18:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"Tungsten axiom"? XOR'easter ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
When you linked Anne Schilling at Rounding it went to a Desperate Housewives episode with a character of that name in it rather than the article about her! That must be some interesting link tool you use ;-) I've fixed it. Dmcq ( talk) 15:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my recent edit at
Semiorder.
I usually generate {{cite...}}
entries from my BiBTeX database by a Linux script, where it is easier to generate ASCII "–
" than UNICODE "–
" (btw: I used to generate "—
" until I read your yesterday's edit message).
Since a few weeks, it appears the terminating semicolon ";
" is changed to a comma ",
" inside a {{cite...}}
and hence not rendered properly.
For example (compare rendering and source code):
{{cite...}}
", but{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)" inside "{{cite...}}
".I consider this a bug, but it is not worth debating with wikipedia programmers about it. I just wanted to explain the motivation for my edit. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
On 15 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chawne Kimber, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that racist graffiti on mathematician Chawne Kimber's college campus, along with George Carlin's seven dirty words, inspired her to politicize her quilting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chawne Kimber. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Chawne Kimber), 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) 00:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
On 16 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joan L. Mitchell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joan L. Mitchell co-invented JPEG? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan L. Mitchell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Joan L. Mitchell), 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) 00:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nairanjana Dasgupta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nairanjana Dasgupta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daiyusha ( talk) 06:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
[10] E Eng 03:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, David - would you please take a look at the merge tag on Jerry Frankel and perform the merge? We would like to start prepping that article for DYK but can’t until the bugs are fixed. Thanks in advance... Atsme ✍🏻 📧 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The
WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list and
Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
The Technical Barnstar | |
You never fail to impress! Thank you so much for solving the Jerry Frankel puzzle. Wikipedians are lucky to have you, whether they realize it or not. I think most do. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC) |
...he claims while it’s no worse than “Fez’s” mediocre “source” right next to it. How about this, since they’re both equal they may as well be treated as such. You can keep both or get rid of both, since the information provided is identical. Don’t enforce corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroux721 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
My apologies for this edit, which inadvertently removed content from the article for Fei-Fei Li and my thanks for taking the time and effort to reinsert the material I had intended to add to what was an old version of the article. Again, my apologies for creating the issue in the first place. Alansohn ( talk) 16:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Changes to the 'Maze solving algorithm' site [11] May I ask why my edit was unsuitable. I am a relatively inexperienced user and wonder what the issue is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blamethemessenger ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein I have asked you repeatedly to please discuss the improvements we are working on in the talk page of the Ruggero Santilli article before you go and start reverting edits again. Please respect the guidelines of Wikipedia and your fellow editors. The BLP in question stated the subjects son is currently the CEO of the company and that his wife and daughter are both directors and the family controls all voting stock of the company. That is no longer true, meaning it is false. I deleted all of it then you reverted my edit. I reverted your edit and JzG then reverted it back to your edit.
In an attempt to make an amical resolution (as I detailed in talk section of the page I encourage you to visit), since you and JzG insist that inaccurate material information about the stock of publicly traded company remain in public view, I suggested I add the accurate current information from SEC filings which contradicts the inaccurate disinformation. And then you reverted that! asking “are we really here to breathlessly repeat a blow-by-blow description of all their stock shenanigans?” No I first tried to delete all that stock talk and you refused to allow the edit.
I think this is why it is important that you participate in the dialogue on the talk section as I have been requesting before reverting. Please, lets discuss it on the talk page before reverting comments. Thanks DCsghost ( talk) 06:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
Hello David - I'm the head of IT for Ariat International and it was brought to my attention this morning at the page for our company ( /info/en/?search=Ariat) was vandalized early this morning by an anonymous user. I have created an account and reverted those changes, but I'm hoping you can help me in locking our page to require that an editor be registered before editing our page.
Thanks in advance Ariat-rbezenek ( talk) 18:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Ryan Bezenek
Happy Holidays!
| |
Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!!
Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️
Every year!
Saint Nickel-less. 🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme ✍🏻 📧 20:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC) |
Dear David, You were right to delete my addition of Patrick Hughes's work from the article on Reverse perspective. Thanks! I was misled by a link on that article for "reverspective" to Reverse perspective. I deleted that link. Robert P. O'Shea ( talk) 05:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this -- it's much better split. -- JBL ( talk) 15:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108
January events:
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello David Eppstein, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Happy editing into 2019 and beyond! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 06:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
You recently undid a deletion prod on /info/en/?search=Jason_Steinhauer, explaining that it is only allowed to prod once. That makes sense, and thanks for that. The page linked is self-promotion, with all of the content coming from the subject of the page (meaning both that the subject of the page is the one who created and drafted all of the content on the page and that virtually all of the linked content is also drafted by the subject of the page elsewhere). The prior prod was removed by the subject of the page, without explanation. Is there a procedure for evaluating whether a page is self-promoting advertisement? Presumably, self-promoting advertisers can always delete prods without comment... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:1:3950:FD5B:8C44:9D84:FBD4 ( talk) 16:27, 28 December 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. |
Hi David, Thank you for trying to keep wikipedia as true as can be. Unfortunately you removed truthful content. Please contact Scott Aaronson if you have any questions regarding our correspondence.
Scott's Contact Info: Scott Aaronson Computer Science Department, Gates Dell Complex 2317 Speedway University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
Sincerely, ++ Jason Michael Blind
Jason Michael Blind President, Owner, Founder, Manager MRG Labs LLC Costa Mesa, CA 92627-2022 909.489.9150 mrg.labs.llc@gmail.com jasonblind@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonblind ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I was visiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Schaal when I noticed that you said here that by copying material into Wikipedia, the webpage owner has in effect given us permission to use the content. That's not correct, because we have no evidence that the person who added it is the copyright holder, and even if we did, we need proof that they are releasing it under a compatible license. The webpage is marked as "Copyrights 2018 Stefan Schaal". An OTRS ticket is required. There's more information on this topic at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, you edited the WP article of MDPI in the past and currently, the article contains misinformation in the lead section that is not in line with WP’s guidelines for creating a MOS:LEAD. As I understand, this section should give emphasis to material that reflects its importance to the topic. As I am an employee of MDPI, I was asked by other editors not to make changes directly to the article but post on the Talk:MDPI page. However, so far there have been no comment to the following change proposals. Can I ask for your help or advice?
1) The Beall issue still features prominently in the lead section, despite the fact that MDPI had nothing to do with Beall’s decision to take down his list. MDPI was added end 2014 and, after we contacted him, removed shortly thereafter in 2015. We had no reason to spend time and effort to get his list taken down years after he had removed MDPI for the list. Another open access publisher may have been in contact with his university, but I do not know the details: https://forbetterscience.com/2017/09/18/frontiers-vanquishers-of-beall-publishers-of-bunk/ Therefore, I would suggest that the Beall issue is either discussed in the main body (removed from the lead section), or that after the sentence “Beall later wrote that he had been pressured to shut down the list due to pressure on his institution from various publishers, specifically mentioning MDPI", the sentence is added: "Beall’s supervisor and institution both refuted Beall's claims that there had been any pressure to take down his list", referring to the following source where Beall's former supervisor, Shea Swauger, clarifies that "CU Denver disagrees with Jeffrey Beall’s assertion that he was pressured by the university to take down his website, scholaryoa.com, earlier this year": https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/16837/18435.
2) The information in the lead section on the data breach is very misleading, as the e-mail addresses and contact information of authors, editors and board members are publicly available on the MDPI.com website (the e-mail addresses of authors are accessible on the article page, as well as those of editors and editorial board members). We also publish the names of reviewers regularly in the journal. The lead section in its current form gives the impression that sensitive data was stolen and that this is a key issue for MDPI. A lead section should highlight the most important information about a subject. This is simply not the case – a weak source was used to add negative information, without the subject even being discussed in the body of the article. Therefore, I suggest to remove the data breach information from the lead, and move it to a separate section and adding the sentence: "No data of a sensitive nature was impacted and the contact information of authors, editors and board members are made publicly available on the MDPI website per default", referring to the following source: https://haveibeenpwned.com/PwnedWebsites
I am really struggling with the fact that WP is trusted as a source but, at present, contains misinformation. Any help or advice you can provide is much appreciated. ErskineCer ( talk) 07:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Working through the WIR list of rejected AfC drafts, I came across Draft:Sue Mi Terry, which I rewrote to show a pass of WP:SCHOLAR#C7 as a widely-quoted expert. But I'm not sure if a think tank fellow with a government background, even with a PhD and some time doing university teaching/research, qualifies for WP:SCHOLAR notability criteria, and I didn't see any specific discussion of this issue on the Talk archives for the academic notability guidelines, so I thought I'd ask you: is WP:SCHOLAR#C7 the way to go here? Any help appreciated, and apologies if this is the wrong way to go about it. Bakazaka ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
On 11 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Evgenia Arbugaeva, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that photographer Evgenia Arbugaeva won the trust of a Siberian mammoth-tusk hunter by stitching up his injured hand? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Evgenia Arbugaeva. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Evgenia Arbugaeva), 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, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for this edit; I just bumped the wrong button with my mouse. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Three new topics for
WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I just finished writing her biography, but I am totally confused about the mathematics referencing. Fairly sure my translation from Italian was accurate, but not how that relates to field-specific language and concepts. Would greatly appreciate your review to see if I muddled it too badly. Unfortunately, the only biography in English is inaccessible to me, but I noted it for further reading. Thank you. SusunW ( talk) 21:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein, there has finally been a response to your DYK review here. Please return when you get a chance to see whether the issues you raised have all been addressed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear David Eppstein
I have made amendments on Ptolemy's theorem in wiki. My reference come from American Mathematical Monthly 1951 Volume 58, Issue 4 Normal Trigrade and Cyclic Quadrilateral with Integral Sides and Diagonals
Please check and don't revert my amendment again. I am sure that my amendment is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhung ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. The converse of Ptolemy's theorem is always true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhung ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what this [1] has done for DriveTime (campaign launched March 7 [2]) but it's done wonders for Carmichael's conjecture and, to a lesser extent, for the Carmichael_function. (Use the log view.) E Eng 05:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
David - we have a guy doing 6D modelling and creating a picture of the Consani-S Quintic just for "your" article at #wikiwomeninred Victuallers ( talk) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Concerning your recent revert of my edit, I understand and claim responsibility for the broken links. Aside from that though, does
WP:HARV not also indicate that <ref>
tags should not be used in an article which uses Harvard/parenthetical referencing?
d
ross (
c ·
@)
18:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of invited speakers at cryptology conferences until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BenKuykendall ( talk) 21:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runawayangel ( talk • contribs)
There are myriad problems with that article. Web search on subject yields nothing. AfD is likely.-- Galassi ( talk) 22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
On 1 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isosceles triangle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that decorative patterns using isosceles triangles date back to the Early Neolithic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isosceles triangle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Isosceles triangle), 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) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
David, The infomation contained here, http://www.wikicu.com/Graciela_Chichilnisky , dated 26 October 2008, is correct, the information contained in Gracielas Wikipedia litigation section is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobNYC ( talk • contribs) 20:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, Thanks for your comment at the Citation bot page ( [5]). While we differ somewhat in regard to when exactly the publisher info can be removed (I think the consensus is that it should only be suppressed when it is identical to the journal name - and IMHO technically this should ideally happen in the citation template, not by not specifying the parameter, so that the meta data remains intact), but there are different styles, needs and opinions (and WP:CITEVAR), and I therefore completely agree with your main point that this is nothing that should be systematically combed one way and removed by a bot. I share your concern and it is my observation that some users are using the bot as an "excuse" to enforce a certain style they prefer (I have even seen one editor edit-warring over it). (I don't know why but I remember having run into questionable edits by this bot only since a couple of months.) The publisher issue has been reported several times recently (f.e. [6]), but the complaints were not taken seriously by the talk page maintainer, instead the threads were archived away as "no issue" even in the middle of unresolved and/or ongoing discussions. In addition to the publisher issue, the bot is also performing all kinds of other questionable changes (see talk) - to an extent that I don't think it is still adhering to WP:BOTPOL nor within the limits of the original tasks it was once approved for. (It also seems as if the bot can be used by users anonymously, but I have only read remarks about it, not checked it myself.) Several editors (including myself) have expressed their concerns about the damage created on the talk page recently to no avail. I am not the only one who has considered filing a thread at ANI to stop the bot and have all its questionable functionality removed, but I don't at present have the time for the overhead involved and would prefer not to report other editors there if avoidable. I would appreciate, however, if an admin could check and evaluate the bot's talk page and archives closely and take the actions found necessary. Thanks for your consideration. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 00:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for leaving that test on my user sub page: it was a mistake that I regret. I apologize even more because I did not mean to have User:John Cline/Outhouse deleted. If I may beg an indulgence, and promise not to do it again, could I please have the page restored? I have a lot of man-hours of useful research stored in that page's history and I hope to find uses for it, for some time to come. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 01:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Can you please have a look at the recent edit on Wolfram axiom? The text that was removed was certainly clunky, but I can't judge its relevance. Thanks, and may your middle always be excluded, Drmies ( talk) 18:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
"Tungsten axiom"? XOR'easter ( talk) 16:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
When you linked Anne Schilling at Rounding it went to a Desperate Housewives episode with a character of that name in it rather than the article about her! That must be some interesting link tool you use ;-) I've fixed it. Dmcq ( talk) 15:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing my recent edit at
Semiorder.
I usually generate {{cite...}}
entries from my BiBTeX database by a Linux script, where it is easier to generate ASCII "–
" than UNICODE "–
" (btw: I used to generate "—
" until I read your yesterday's edit message).
Since a few weeks, it appears the terminating semicolon ";
" is changed to a comma ",
" inside a {{cite...}}
and hence not rendered properly.
For example (compare rendering and source code):
{{cite...}}
", but{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)" inside "{{cite...}}
".I consider this a bug, but it is not worth debating with wikipedia programmers about it. I just wanted to explain the motivation for my edit. Best regards - Jochen Burghardt ( talk) 10:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
On 15 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chawne Kimber, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that racist graffiti on mathematician Chawne Kimber's college campus, along with George Carlin's seven dirty words, inspired her to politicize her quilting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chawne Kimber. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Chawne Kimber), 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) 00:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
On 16 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joan L. Mitchell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Joan L. Mitchell co-invented JPEG? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joan L. Mitchell. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Joan L. Mitchell), 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) 00:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nairanjana Dasgupta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nairanjana Dasgupta until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daiyusha ( talk) 06:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
[10] E Eng 03:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, David - would you please take a look at the merge tag on Jerry Frankel and perform the merge? We would like to start prepping that article for DYK but can’t until the bugs are fixed. Thanks in advance... Atsme ✍🏻 📧 15:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The
WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.
Continuing: | ||
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): (To subscribe:
Women in Red/English language mailing list and
Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe:
Women in Red/Opt-out list) |
The Technical Barnstar | |
You never fail to impress! Thank you so much for solving the Jerry Frankel puzzle. Wikipedians are lucky to have you, whether they realize it or not. I think most do. Atsme ✍🏻 📧 02:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC) |
...he claims while it’s no worse than “Fez’s” mediocre “source” right next to it. How about this, since they’re both equal they may as well be treated as such. You can keep both or get rid of both, since the information provided is identical. Don’t enforce corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroux721 ( talk • contribs) 10:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
My apologies for this edit, which inadvertently removed content from the article for Fei-Fei Li and my thanks for taking the time and effort to reinsert the material I had intended to add to what was an old version of the article. Again, my apologies for creating the issue in the first place. Alansohn ( talk) 16:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Changes to the 'Maze solving algorithm' site [11] May I ask why my edit was unsuitable. I am a relatively inexperienced user and wonder what the issue is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blamethemessenger ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein I have asked you repeatedly to please discuss the improvements we are working on in the talk page of the Ruggero Santilli article before you go and start reverting edits again. Please respect the guidelines of Wikipedia and your fellow editors. The BLP in question stated the subjects son is currently the CEO of the company and that his wife and daughter are both directors and the family controls all voting stock of the company. That is no longer true, meaning it is false. I deleted all of it then you reverted my edit. I reverted your edit and JzG then reverted it back to your edit.
In an attempt to make an amical resolution (as I detailed in talk section of the page I encourage you to visit), since you and JzG insist that inaccurate material information about the stock of publicly traded company remain in public view, I suggested I add the accurate current information from SEC filings which contradicts the inaccurate disinformation. And then you reverted that! asking “are we really here to breathlessly repeat a blow-by-blow description of all their stock shenanigans?” No I first tried to delete all that stock talk and you refused to allow the edit.
I think this is why it is important that you participate in the dialogue on the talk section as I have been requesting before reverting. Please, lets discuss it on the talk page before reverting comments. Thanks DCsghost ( talk) 06:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
Hello David - I'm the head of IT for Ariat International and it was brought to my attention this morning at the page for our company ( /info/en/?search=Ariat) was vandalized early this morning by an anonymous user. I have created an account and reverted those changes, but I'm hoping you can help me in locking our page to require that an editor be registered before editing our page.
Thanks in advance Ariat-rbezenek ( talk) 18:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Ryan Bezenek
Happy Holidays!
| |
Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!!
Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️
Every year!
Saint Nickel-less. 🔔🎁⛄️🎅🏻 Atsme ✍🏻 📧 20:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC) |
Dear David, You were right to delete my addition of Patrick Hughes's work from the article on Reverse perspective. Thanks! I was misled by a link on that article for "reverspective" to Reverse perspective. I deleted that link. Robert P. O'Shea ( talk) 05:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this -- it's much better split. -- JBL ( talk) 15:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108
January events:
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! | |
Hello David Eppstein, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this
seasonal occasion. Spread the
WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Happy editing into 2019 and beyond! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 06:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
You recently undid a deletion prod on /info/en/?search=Jason_Steinhauer, explaining that it is only allowed to prod once. That makes sense, and thanks for that. The page linked is self-promotion, with all of the content coming from the subject of the page (meaning both that the subject of the page is the one who created and drafted all of the content on the page and that virtually all of the linked content is also drafted by the subject of the page elsewhere). The prior prod was removed by the subject of the page, without explanation. Is there a procedure for evaluating whether a page is self-promoting advertisement? Presumably, self-promoting advertisers can always delete prods without comment... Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:1:3950:FD5B:8C44:9D84:FBD4 ( talk) 16:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)