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. |
How come she's not given credit for engineering if she made astrolobes & hydraulics instruments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:797D:E800:F965:65A2:9FC4:4499 ( talk) 07:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
My purpose for adding a reference in the lede of the derangement article was to resist efforts by a determined and eccentric editor to replace this with nonsense. I'd suggest putting in at the very least one of your high-quality cites to support it. The Anome ( talk) 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Tardos function contains the following statement:
As I interpret the cited source, the Tardos function was not specifically used to refute Blum's claim of having proved that Clique ∉ P; moreover, the refutation is not a disproof by counterexample; it merely pokes a hole in the argument. -- Lambiam 05:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I am a friend and colleague of Phyllis Zagano /info/en/?search=Phyllis_Zagano and she has asked me to watch her page. She requested that the following changes be made to her page:
In 2016, Pope Francis appointed Zagano to the Papal Study Commission on theWomen's Diaconate.[10] [11] The Commission's first meeting was held November 25–26, 2016. [12] Its report was provided to Pope Francis in July 2018[13][14]
In May 2019,Francis gave what he termed "a portion" of the report to the president of theInternational Union of Superiors General (UISG), saying they could "do with it what theywanted," and that he had more sections they could request.
While Francis indicated that individual study continued, he did not indicate then whether the Study Commission remains active as a body.[13] At the final assembly of the 2019 Amazon Synod,Francis indicated he would, at the synod's request, recall the commission, adding two or three members. In January 2020, the president of the UISG said they received the history section of the report.
On April 8, 2020, Francis named an entirely new commission, which first met during the week of September 13, 2021.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-04/pope-commission-women-deacons.html
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14417/women-deacons-commission-to-hold-first-meeting
I made a small change to her last publication also per her request.
Janice Leah Poss ( talk) 22:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Janicelp: You and Zagano presumably found my user talk page through the fact that I had protected the page so that only established Wikipedia editors could edit it, roughly two years ago. It is unlikely to have escaped your attention that the reason the article needed that level of protection was "Long-term autobiographical and promotional editing". So you might try considering more deeply the autobiographical and promotional nature of the edits you are requesting. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
David, Thanks for protecting her page. Phyllis has had certain folks go in and change info on her page that is not correct, or, perhaps need updating as she is still working and her own webpage is a work in progress. I have explained some of how Wikipedia works to her. Yes, much of the info here is autobiographical, but primarily because she is a leader in the movement to instate women as deacons in the Catholic Church because of its biased history and lack of leadership roles for women. This has been her lifelong project, the entire movement is growing and has grown over the years. I am a theologian with an investment in women's leadrship and agency in religion. Phyllis is one of the few women who has worked directly with the Vatican and Francis on the issues of women and working toward women's visibility, increased offical leadership and rights as 50% of the Church's membership. Autobiographical, sure, but it's also biographical--perhaps this is where perhaps the actual writing above then might be changed to be less auto-promotional-right? I am also part of the 1000 Women in Red(Religion) project since the beginning and am a founding member of the group and so my investment in her page is manifold for me and my colleagues on this project. Here is our meet up page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_1000_Women_in_Religion. Thanks--your input is most valuable. I don't get a chance to do much editing as I am finishing a Ph.D. and have many other wrting projects, but I did promise her that I would watch her page and grateful that you are doing so. Janice Leah Poss ( talk) 21:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your many contributions David! Timothy Sawe ( talk) 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
SPI is too backlogged for me to bother them with posting this there, but hopefully you are not: the latest IP has self-identified [1] (see the github link). -- JBL ( talk) 11:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I’ve been trying to make edits to improve the usefulness of the glossary of graph theory Wikipedia page, but you have simply been reversing them, ie rather than taking on board my efforts which you appear to concede do have some merit. Is there some other approach that can be taken here in order to move forward positively? PaulBratch ( talk) 21:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Shame. I'd hoped you would have had a more constructive attitude. PaulBratch ( talk) 06:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try explaining why you are being so condescending PaulBratch ( talk) 08:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
While I’d acknowledge the definition of Orbit would be better placed in the glossary on Groups, that it didn’t already appear there either was what motivated me to try to help others like me who are just embarking (2 weeks ago) on a study of Graph theory including it’s close relationship to Group theory. I’d similarly tried to help others by refining the definition of Diameter in the Graph theory glossary, as I’d also found it ambiguous as previously set out. That both changes were reversed then condemned as “bad edits” using language that would be clearly seen as condescending by any reasonable person is as unnecessary as it is depressing. I’d have expected an educator to be at least supportive even if frustrated at the imperfect efforts of someone trying to help the world. But what we appear to have is an educator condemning people from their ivory tower, then constructing lame excuses about potential dyslexia in an attempt to explain away their attitude. PaulBratch ( talk) 21:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary I’m not choosing to believe the worst in others, rather I’m trying to help the project, indeed on the topic of my 2 changes that you reversed my original appeal to you was asking for an approach for moving forward positively, which is still my hope. PaulBratch ( talk) 21:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square-difference-free set 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Square-difference-free set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Square-difference-free set for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Your perspective may be useful here, particularly as I’m citing your bio as an example. Montanabw (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Would you please extend your standpoint that domain of applicability for n-ball volume and surface formulas are only natural numbers? Guswen ( talk) 16:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
( Volume_of_an_n-ball) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Good point about the topic being overbroad, but I guess I was more interested in your thoughts about moving toward a CIR-based (or whatever) topic ban for one or more people given WT:Article_size#Clarification_needed_for_"article_splitting_activists", and before that WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Cban_against_implementing_article_splits_for_Onetwothreeip. E Eng 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that at (for example)
Phineas Gage the presence of {Use mdy dates} -- which I vaguely understood until now to just be informational, not something that actually does anything -- now causes access dates in citation templates to be converted into MDY, even if they were originally in YDMYMD. I think you know where I'm going with this. Before I raised a stink, any thoughts?
E
Eng
06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
And so the following is I guess obligatory:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Darylprasad & Platonic solids. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You have surely reverted a correct edit here. I'm not comfortable reverting you on a mathematical issue so I won't do that, but base (exponentiation) does not seem to be the correct link for a counting base whereas radix does. Spinning Spark 06:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi David, I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Euclid–Euler theorem! I created this article back in 2014, as I noticed there wasn't an article on this topic on Wikipedia. I only knew a bare minimum about the topic when creating it, though, and I remember wondering if others more knowledgeable than me would eventually contribute to it and make it really good. It's so nice that it's now become a Good Article thanks to all the work you and other contributors have put into it since then! Llightex ( talk) 22:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
On 24 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Emily Sinclair, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 100 years after Mary Emily Sinclair wrote a master's thesis in mathematics on the discriminants of quintic polynomials, Helaman Ferguson based a sculpture on her work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Emily Sinclair. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Mary Emily Sinclair), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde ( Talk) 00:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Could you maybe try to unify the inline citations? At least citations like "See R Vidal et al., Chung and Furukawa [1]," could be improved :) Biggerj1 ( talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a need for more Inline citations. I searched for another template in the hope that it stimulates you or Others to add more Inline citations (possibly Just from the already existing list of references). Biggerj1 ( talk) 05:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your good work revamping and maintaining the Three utilities problem article, cmɢʟee⎆ τaʟκ 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, a few of the articles provide implementations for the algorithms—which are mostly on either C++ or C. But I could see a lot of style inconsistencies, which leads to uglier code and makes it hard to understand. I know pseudocodes are preferred over languages specific implementations, but I think we should standardize the C++ implementation's style. I propose that we use clang-format with LLVM style guideline for the articles, to make them consistent and easier for readers to understand, under MOS:SOURCE. Let me know what you think. WikiLinuz ( talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi David,
I just want to thank you for creating the article on my mother Cicely Ridley
/info/en/?search=Cicely_Ridley
Did you know her?
Aidan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Ridley ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
An academic notability question: do you think Jian-yi Shi ( GS, MathSciNet) satisfies NPROF? (This concerns the fact that I made him a redlink at Affine symmetric group, which choice was queried by the GA reviewer.) In addition to citations, perhaps this is a relevant data point: [2] (though Shi arrangement is also a redlink).
Thanks, JBL ( talk) 11:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Farthest-first traversal 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 RoySmith -- RoySmith ( talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
After feeling that I'd had to explain what churnalism is one too many times, I started writing an essay. I know that there have been occasional attempts to get WP:SCIRS off the ground as a counterpart to WP:MEDRS, but the challenges seem different enough that the clone-and-modify approach didn't feel quite right to me, and I was more confident in my ability to say something sensible with a more restricted scope. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Constructible number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constructible number for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Farthest-first traversal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Farthest-first traversal for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith ( talk) 04:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What! My edits aren't constructive! I have added an Image of the letter π Nishānt Omm ( talk) 12:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
flagging for senior administration review @Mvitulli: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:C400:4A0:65A0:BB2C:DF36:D603 ( talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like a better explanation than "(Lulu?!)woo" for these revisions from an educated college professor, or please reverse your undo of my edits.
Respectfully, Thedarkgreenmeme ( talk) 07:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources all pointed to underlying survey data. If you didn't like that particular source, you could have simply removed it, instead of removing all my edits. A rock solid source of information on the slope of the Pyramids of Gizeh are by W.M. Flanders who found in his 1883 survey (last published by Cullen Press, 2020) that the seked on Khufu's pyramid is between 51º 50' 40" and 51º 57' 30".
You removed as an 'unsourced new section' the calculated angles of the Kepler Triangle, something that former student of a high school trigonometry class can easily verify with a decent scientific calculator, and you did not address this in your response, so I think you may have failed to even read it before removing it.
Likewise, the information about the mathematical coincidence and pi I feel is erroneous. I'm not looking to remove it, but I think the statement I added helps to dispel any mysticism about this coincidence. As I already just pointed out, and you did not address, is that the simple value 22/7 is twice as good as the value of as an approximation to pi, easily verified on a scientific calculator.
I request that you revert my edits, and I will replace the reference to which you object with another. Respectfully, Thedarkgreenmeme ( talk) 22:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I deeply resent the insulation that I am numerologist, and find it extremely insulting. ,My edits have nothing to do with numerology. You apparently did not comprehend or even read my edits before reverting them, and if you did, you could have easily verified them yourself. I am considering ceasing all of my donations to WikiMedia foundation, since the phrase "The Encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a lie. Thedarkgreenmeme ( talk) 01:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Handshaking lemma 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 21:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Handshaking lemma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Handshaking lemma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 21:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Feedback arc set 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 SnowFire -- SnowFire ( talk) 07:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I did a review of Feedback arc set. I considered using the GA notification template but the "onhold" is weirdly hostile about how maybe the article will fail if you don't act soon, which I highly doubt in this case. Anyway, take a look, it's at Talk:Feedback arc set/GA1. SnowFire ( talk) 07:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you have a look on the edit war at Exponentiation by squaring. IMO, the best solution is a protection of the page. If I ask you directly instead of submitting a request to an administrator's noticeboard, it is because distinguishing this vandalism from a content dispute requires some competence on algorithms.
Thanks in advnce. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Opaque set 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Feedback arc set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Feedback arc set for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SnowFire -- SnowFire ( talk) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Three utilities problem 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair ( talk) 09:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, David. Would you do me a favor and tell me whether Thomas Niederkrotenthaler ( https://www.csh.ac.at/researcher/thomas-niederkrotenthaler/) qualifies under PROF rules? He's cited in a couple of articles that I was looking at. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The pronunciation is not at all obvious. I was pronouncing it "bor-ROM-ean" in my head until I looked it up. WP is for everyone, not just ppl who already know the topic. — kwami ( talk) 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Opaque set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Opaque set for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 22:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This is Alan Selman’s wife, Sharon Selman. His birthdate is April 2, 1941 not April 1. I know your source was his University at Buffalo web page. They got it wrong and I was in touch with the chairman to correct it. I actually wrote his obituary for the funeral home’s website when he passed away. UB ‘s CSE department took the obituary and added his birthdate (incorrectly) and death date (correctly) and called it “in Memoriam.” You will see my name listed in this first reference. So please, please change his birthdate back to April 2. I was married to him for over 57 years. I think I should know the correct date of his birth! Sharsel2 ( talk) 04:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I recall you created a redirect during some discussion in which I was involved, not I assume because you thought the references suggested that as an alternate name or intrinsic part of the page's subject. Would you consider deleting it? ~ cygnis insignis 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear Professor David Eppstein,
Since 2014 until now, Could you review the Dao’s theorem on six circumcenter again?
https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Định_lý_Đào_về_sáu_tâm_đường_tròn
Best regards Dao Thanh Oai
Please see: Original posted http://adgeom.epizy.com/message.php?msg=1531 and https://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml I named the theorem is: Another seven circles theorem. Professor Paul Yiu and Mister Dergiades named theorem after mine. I only known the Theorem name after me when the paper published.
I ask you review the theorem and reference; I didn't ask you review the name. I wonder why your answer based on name? Because You can review as Geometer, don't as admin of wiki.
Until some years, I contact with you because I think You are geometer, I don't contact with you because You are admin of wiki.
Best regards Dao Thanh Oai
Immediately cease this harassment. 109.70.40.55 ( talk) 00:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you insist in pure theory? Didn't I explain a technical issue where this curve is of relevance? Do you know any other point of relevance in nature?
A curve of constant width is to be avoided in drilling holes. If you don't know any other link to real world, keep this one described in the article. -- Vollbracht ( talk) 01:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, could you please block 220.132.207.146 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this IP as also was blocked in zhwiki. Thank you. SCP -20 00 06:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just leaving this on your talk page to not drive the conversation at RSN off-topic. I wanted to make you aware that mr. Bobby has been blocked 5 times for edit warring. Might be worth considering going to ANI or asking an admin for their opinion on the user, seeing how he's lashing out and avoiding consensus. I am currently blocked from ANI for a few months due to WP:CIR so I can't necessarily comment too much on that front, but it is definitely an option. Hope you have a good week :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
On 24 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constructible number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an equivalence between algebraic and geometric definitions of constructible numbers helps prove the impossibility of squaring the circle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constructible number. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Constructible number), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
On 25 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Handshaking lemma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that whenever some of the people in a party shake hands, the number of people who shake an odd number of other people's hands is even? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Handshaking lemma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Handshaking lemma), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 5,471 views (455.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No-three-in-line problem 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 Eviolite -- Eviolite ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The article No-three-in-line problem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No-three-in-line problem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The article No-three-in-line problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No-three-in-line problem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite ( talk) 04:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Three utilities problem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Three utilities problem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair ( talk) 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was on my way to file an ANI notice when the "skip the drama" suggestion at WP:ANI caught my eye and it occurred to me to post here first. But please let me know if you'd prefer that I just go straight to ANI. You might remember a few months ago when User:ThurstonMitchell was diffusing women out of non-diffusing academic categories, so that they were only classified as (say) "women political scientists" and not as "political scientists". The relevant conversation was here. Similarly, over the last 2 days BostonMensa has been using HotCat to take women out of non-diffusing parent categories so that they are only in subcategories. After their first round of edits I attempted to start a conversation here, but rather than engaging, they just re-did one of the edits I objected to (it violates WP:EGRS point 5, and the category is specifically marked as non-diffusing). I then commented again on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion, and pointed them to the conversation I tried to start with ThurstonMitchell about the same thing at Category talk:American women political scientists. Instead of engaging in either discussion, they resumed today using automated editing tools to remove women from their professional categories because they are in a non-diffusing subcategory: see e.g. 1, 2, 3. Again, let me know if you'd rather I post at ANI instead. - Astrophobe ( talk) 22:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I submitted my PhD dissertation yesterday so I was a bit preoccupied.I'll bet -- congrats! -- JBL ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Three utilities problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Three utilities problem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair ( talk) 05:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The Mathematics Barnstar | ||
For over 15 years of dedicated editing and hard work that you have put in to improve hundreds of articles related to mathematics — elevating dozens of them to good article status. Your work is commendable and you are an asset to the project. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
...in this discussion, and I thought you'd like to know as you were not pinged. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi David. You should know, Infinity Knight has filed a complaint about you at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conduct of David Eppstein. – Joe ( talk) 08:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
On 5 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feedback arc set, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for round-robin sports tournaments, finding a ranking of the competitors that minimizes the number of upset games is an instance of the feedback arc set problem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feedback arc set. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Feedback arc set), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Well done. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing my attention to WP:DISINFOBOX on the Mariolina Padula page, I wasn't aware of the standards surrounding infoboxes. Will keep this in mind going forward! Best, Coolcactus04 ( talk) 23:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Based on your comment in the category talk discussion, I gather that you would have opposed the recent effort to delete the entire category tree of alumni categories. I think this is poised to be a recurring problem, and despite the outcome of that discussion I think we are headed towards an RfC on the question of whether such categories should exist and perhaps how they should be used. This may be something of a pitched battle, so I would certainly appreciate your input on the best solution to the controversy. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi David,
Thank you for working to improve the fast inverse square root article--I don't remember if I ever thanked you for the work on it at any point in the last decade so I figure I should do so now. :)
This blog post was just added to the page. I suppose you'll see it on the watchlist but I felt it might be interesting to you independently as you worked on the article. Protonk ( talk) 21:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I sincerely thank you for assisting, and I am totally sorry for the misguided post, which I considered to be uncontroversial and now realize how much it is. I copied the discussion to my talk page and will point to it on the article's talk page. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 18:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I had nominated binary search tree for GA a few weeks ago since I believe it meets the criteria. Would you be willing to give it a review, or any remarks, if you have some free time? Thanks, WikiLinuz🍁( talk) 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
On 15 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No-three-in-line problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one can place 16 pawns on a chessboard such that no three pawns lie on the same line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No-three-in-line problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, No-three-in-line problem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 6,527 views (543.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/she) 06:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square pyramidal 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 Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 02:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regular 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
On 20 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three utilities problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is impossible to draw non-crossing lines from three houses to three utilities (pictured) in a plane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three utilities problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Three utilities problem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 17,408 views (1,450.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/she) 01:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Regular number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regular number for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah ( talk) 11:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
The article Square pyramidal number you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Square pyramidal number for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 10:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Square pyramidal number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Square pyramidal number for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This diff is beautiful. Thanks! jp× g 22:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The Women in Red Barnstar | ||
Thank you for making numerous articles on women, especially by reducing the number of redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships. Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
Much respect to you~ SpiralSource ( talk) 09:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
I see that you have removed every mention of hyperfactorial from Factorial. Nevertheless Hyperfactorial still redirects here. IMO, it should be redirected to K-function, but this require some editing of the new target. Thanks in advance for fixing this issue. D.Lazard ( talk) 22:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
A token of thanks
Hi David Eppstein! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (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. |
How come she's not given credit for engineering if she made astrolobes & hydraulics instruments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:797D:E800:F965:65A2:9FC4:4499 ( talk) 07:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
My purpose for adding a reference in the lede of the derangement article was to resist efforts by a determined and eccentric editor to replace this with nonsense. I'd suggest putting in at the very least one of your high-quality cites to support it. The Anome ( talk) 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Tardos function contains the following statement:
As I interpret the cited source, the Tardos function was not specifically used to refute Blum's claim of having proved that Clique ∉ P; moreover, the refutation is not a disproof by counterexample; it merely pokes a hole in the argument. -- Lambiam 05:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I am a friend and colleague of Phyllis Zagano /info/en/?search=Phyllis_Zagano and she has asked me to watch her page. She requested that the following changes be made to her page:
In 2016, Pope Francis appointed Zagano to the Papal Study Commission on theWomen's Diaconate.[10] [11] The Commission's first meeting was held November 25–26, 2016. [12] Its report was provided to Pope Francis in July 2018[13][14]
In May 2019,Francis gave what he termed "a portion" of the report to the president of theInternational Union of Superiors General (UISG), saying they could "do with it what theywanted," and that he had more sections they could request.
While Francis indicated that individual study continued, he did not indicate then whether the Study Commission remains active as a body.[13] At the final assembly of the 2019 Amazon Synod,Francis indicated he would, at the synod's request, recall the commission, adding two or three members. In January 2020, the president of the UISG said they received the history section of the report.
On April 8, 2020, Francis named an entirely new commission, which first met during the week of September 13, 2021.
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-04/pope-commission-women-deacons.html
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14417/women-deacons-commission-to-hold-first-meeting
I made a small change to her last publication also per her request.
Janice Leah Poss ( talk) 22:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Janicelp: You and Zagano presumably found my user talk page through the fact that I had protected the page so that only established Wikipedia editors could edit it, roughly two years ago. It is unlikely to have escaped your attention that the reason the article needed that level of protection was "Long-term autobiographical and promotional editing". So you might try considering more deeply the autobiographical and promotional nature of the edits you are requesting. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
David, Thanks for protecting her page. Phyllis has had certain folks go in and change info on her page that is not correct, or, perhaps need updating as she is still working and her own webpage is a work in progress. I have explained some of how Wikipedia works to her. Yes, much of the info here is autobiographical, but primarily because she is a leader in the movement to instate women as deacons in the Catholic Church because of its biased history and lack of leadership roles for women. This has been her lifelong project, the entire movement is growing and has grown over the years. I am a theologian with an investment in women's leadrship and agency in religion. Phyllis is one of the few women who has worked directly with the Vatican and Francis on the issues of women and working toward women's visibility, increased offical leadership and rights as 50% of the Church's membership. Autobiographical, sure, but it's also biographical--perhaps this is where perhaps the actual writing above then might be changed to be less auto-promotional-right? I am also part of the 1000 Women in Red(Religion) project since the beginning and am a founding member of the group and so my investment in her page is manifold for me and my colleagues on this project. Here is our meet up page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_1000_Women_in_Religion. Thanks--your input is most valuable. I don't get a chance to do much editing as I am finishing a Ph.D. and have many other wrting projects, but I did promise her that I would watch her page and grateful that you are doing so. Janice Leah Poss ( talk) 21:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for your many contributions David! Timothy Sawe ( talk) 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC) |
SPI is too backlogged for me to bother them with posting this there, but hopefully you are not: the latest IP has self-identified [1] (see the github link). -- JBL ( talk) 11:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I’ve been trying to make edits to improve the usefulness of the glossary of graph theory Wikipedia page, but you have simply been reversing them, ie rather than taking on board my efforts which you appear to concede do have some merit. Is there some other approach that can be taken here in order to move forward positively? PaulBratch ( talk) 21:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Shame. I'd hoped you would have had a more constructive attitude. PaulBratch ( talk) 06:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try explaining why you are being so condescending PaulBratch ( talk) 08:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
While I’d acknowledge the definition of Orbit would be better placed in the glossary on Groups, that it didn’t already appear there either was what motivated me to try to help others like me who are just embarking (2 weeks ago) on a study of Graph theory including it’s close relationship to Group theory. I’d similarly tried to help others by refining the definition of Diameter in the Graph theory glossary, as I’d also found it ambiguous as previously set out. That both changes were reversed then condemned as “bad edits” using language that would be clearly seen as condescending by any reasonable person is as unnecessary as it is depressing. I’d have expected an educator to be at least supportive even if frustrated at the imperfect efforts of someone trying to help the world. But what we appear to have is an educator condemning people from their ivory tower, then constructing lame excuses about potential dyslexia in an attempt to explain away their attitude. PaulBratch ( talk) 21:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary I’m not choosing to believe the worst in others, rather I’m trying to help the project, indeed on the topic of my 2 changes that you reversed my original appeal to you was asking for an approach for moving forward positively, which is still my hope. PaulBratch ( talk) 21:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square-difference-free set 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
The article Square-difference-free set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Square-difference-free set for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Your perspective may be useful here, particularly as I’m citing your bio as an example. Montanabw (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Would you please extend your standpoint that domain of applicability for n-ball volume and surface formulas are only natural numbers? Guswen ( talk) 16:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
( Volume_of_an_n-ball) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Good point about the topic being overbroad, but I guess I was more interested in your thoughts about moving toward a CIR-based (or whatever) topic ban for one or more people given WT:Article_size#Clarification_needed_for_"article_splitting_activists", and before that WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Cban_against_implementing_article_splits_for_Onetwothreeip. E Eng 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that at (for example)
Phineas Gage the presence of {Use mdy dates} -- which I vaguely understood until now to just be informational, not something that actually does anything -- now causes access dates in citation templates to be converted into MDY, even if they were originally in YDMYMD. I think you know where I'm going with this. Before I raised a stink, any thoughts?
E
Eng
06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
And so the following is I guess obligatory:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Darylprasad & Platonic solids. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
You have surely reverted a correct edit here. I'm not comfortable reverting you on a mathematical issue so I won't do that, but base (exponentiation) does not seem to be the correct link for a counting base whereas radix does. Spinning Spark 06:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi David, I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Euclid–Euler theorem! I created this article back in 2014, as I noticed there wasn't an article on this topic on Wikipedia. I only knew a bare minimum about the topic when creating it, though, and I remember wondering if others more knowledgeable than me would eventually contribute to it and make it really good. It's so nice that it's now become a Good Article thanks to all the work you and other contributors have put into it since then! Llightex ( talk) 22:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
On 24 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Emily Sinclair, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 100 years after Mary Emily Sinclair wrote a master's thesis in mathematics on the discriminants of quintic polynomials, Helaman Ferguson based a sculpture on her work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Emily Sinclair. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Mary Emily Sinclair), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Vanamonde ( Talk) 00:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Could you maybe try to unify the inline citations? At least citations like "See R Vidal et al., Chung and Furukawa [1]," could be improved :) Biggerj1 ( talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a need for more Inline citations. I searched for another template in the hope that it stimulates you or Others to add more Inline citations (possibly Just from the already existing list of references). Biggerj1 ( talk) 05:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thanks for your good work revamping and maintaining the Three utilities problem article, cmɢʟee⎆ τaʟκ 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC) |
Hi, a few of the articles provide implementations for the algorithms—which are mostly on either C++ or C. But I could see a lot of style inconsistencies, which leads to uglier code and makes it hard to understand. I know pseudocodes are preferred over languages specific implementations, but I think we should standardize the C++ implementation's style. I propose that we use clang-format with LLVM style guideline for the articles, to make them consistent and easier for readers to understand, under MOS:SOURCE. Let me know what you think. WikiLinuz ( talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi David,
I just want to thank you for creating the article on my mother Cicely Ridley
/info/en/?search=Cicely_Ridley
Did you know her?
Aidan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Ridley ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
An academic notability question: do you think Jian-yi Shi ( GS, MathSciNet) satisfies NPROF? (This concerns the fact that I made him a redlink at Affine symmetric group, which choice was queried by the GA reviewer.) In addition to citations, perhaps this is a relevant data point: [2] (though Shi arrangement is also a redlink).
Thanks, JBL ( talk) 11:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Farthest-first traversal 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 RoySmith -- RoySmith ( talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
After feeling that I'd had to explain what churnalism is one too many times, I started writing an essay. I know that there have been occasional attempts to get WP:SCIRS off the ground as a counterpart to WP:MEDRS, but the challenges seem different enough that the clone-and-modify approach didn't feel quite right to me, and I was more confident in my ability to say something sensible with a more restricted scope. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Constructible number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constructible number for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Farthest-first traversal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Farthest-first traversal for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RoySmith -- RoySmith ( talk) 04:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
What! My edits aren't constructive! I have added an Image of the letter π Nishānt Omm ( talk) 12:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
flagging for senior administration review @Mvitulli: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:C400:4A0:65A0:BB2C:DF36:D603 ( talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I would like a better explanation than "(Lulu?!)woo" for these revisions from an educated college professor, or please reverse your undo of my edits.
Respectfully, Thedarkgreenmeme ( talk) 07:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The sources all pointed to underlying survey data. If you didn't like that particular source, you could have simply removed it, instead of removing all my edits. A rock solid source of information on the slope of the Pyramids of Gizeh are by W.M. Flanders who found in his 1883 survey (last published by Cullen Press, 2020) that the seked on Khufu's pyramid is between 51º 50' 40" and 51º 57' 30".
You removed as an 'unsourced new section' the calculated angles of the Kepler Triangle, something that former student of a high school trigonometry class can easily verify with a decent scientific calculator, and you did not address this in your response, so I think you may have failed to even read it before removing it.
Likewise, the information about the mathematical coincidence and pi I feel is erroneous. I'm not looking to remove it, but I think the statement I added helps to dispel any mysticism about this coincidence. As I already just pointed out, and you did not address, is that the simple value 22/7 is twice as good as the value of as an approximation to pi, easily verified on a scientific calculator.
I request that you revert my edits, and I will replace the reference to which you object with another. Respectfully, Thedarkgreenmeme ( talk) 22:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I deeply resent the insulation that I am numerologist, and find it extremely insulting. ,My edits have nothing to do with numerology. You apparently did not comprehend or even read my edits before reverting them, and if you did, you could have easily verified them yourself. I am considering ceasing all of my donations to WikiMedia foundation, since the phrase "The Encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a lie. Thedarkgreenmeme ( talk) 01:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Handshaking lemma 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 21:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Handshaking lemma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Handshaking lemma for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 21:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Feedback arc set 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 SnowFire -- SnowFire ( talk) 07:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
FYI, I did a review of Feedback arc set. I considered using the GA notification template but the "onhold" is weirdly hostile about how maybe the article will fail if you don't act soon, which I highly doubt in this case. Anyway, take a look, it's at Talk:Feedback arc set/GA1. SnowFire ( talk) 07:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you have a look on the edit war at Exponentiation by squaring. IMO, the best solution is a protection of the page. If I ask you directly instead of submitting a request to an administrator's noticeboard, it is because distinguishing this vandalism from a content dispute requires some competence on algorithms.
Thanks in advnce. D.Lazard ( talk) 10:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Opaque set 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Feedback arc set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Feedback arc set for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SnowFire -- SnowFire ( talk) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Three utilities problem 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair ( talk) 09:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, David. Would you do me a favor and tell me whether Thomas Niederkrotenthaler ( https://www.csh.ac.at/researcher/thomas-niederkrotenthaler/) qualifies under PROF rules? He's cited in a couple of articles that I was looking at. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The pronunciation is not at all obvious. I was pronouncing it "bor-ROM-ean" in my head until I looked it up. WP is for everyone, not just ppl who already know the topic. — kwami ( talk) 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Opaque set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Opaque set for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 22:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
This is Alan Selman’s wife, Sharon Selman. His birthdate is April 2, 1941 not April 1. I know your source was his University at Buffalo web page. They got it wrong and I was in touch with the chairman to correct it. I actually wrote his obituary for the funeral home’s website when he passed away. UB ‘s CSE department took the obituary and added his birthdate (incorrectly) and death date (correctly) and called it “in Memoriam.” You will see my name listed in this first reference. So please, please change his birthdate back to April 2. I was married to him for over 57 years. I think I should know the correct date of his birth! Sharsel2 ( talk) 04:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I recall you created a redirect during some discussion in which I was involved, not I assume because you thought the references suggested that as an alternate name or intrinsic part of the page's subject. Would you consider deleting it? ~ cygnis insignis 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear Professor David Eppstein,
Since 2014 until now, Could you review the Dao’s theorem on six circumcenter again?
https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Định_lý_Đào_về_sáu_tâm_đường_tròn
Best regards Dao Thanh Oai
Please see: Original posted http://adgeom.epizy.com/message.php?msg=1531 and https://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml I named the theorem is: Another seven circles theorem. Professor Paul Yiu and Mister Dergiades named theorem after mine. I only known the Theorem name after me when the paper published.
I ask you review the theorem and reference; I didn't ask you review the name. I wonder why your answer based on name? Because You can review as Geometer, don't as admin of wiki.
Until some years, I contact with you because I think You are geometer, I don't contact with you because You are admin of wiki.
Best regards Dao Thanh Oai
Immediately cease this harassment. 109.70.40.55 ( talk) 00:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Why do you insist in pure theory? Didn't I explain a technical issue where this curve is of relevance? Do you know any other point of relevance in nature?
A curve of constant width is to be avoided in drilling holes. If you don't know any other link to real world, keep this one described in the article. -- Vollbracht ( talk) 01:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, could you please block 220.132.207.146 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this IP as also was blocked in zhwiki. Thank you. SCP -20 00 06:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Just leaving this on your talk page to not drive the conversation at RSN off-topic. I wanted to make you aware that mr. Bobby has been blocked 5 times for edit warring. Might be worth considering going to ANI or asking an admin for their opinion on the user, seeing how he's lashing out and avoiding consensus. I am currently blocked from ANI for a few months due to WP:CIR so I can't necessarily comment too much on that front, but it is definitely an option. Hope you have a good week :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
On 24 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constructible number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an equivalence between algebraic and geometric definitions of constructible numbers helps prove the impossibility of squaring the circle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constructible number. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Constructible number), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
On 25 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Handshaking lemma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that whenever some of the people in a party shake hands, the number of people who shake an odd number of other people's hands is even? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Handshaking lemma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Handshaking lemma), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 5,471 views (455.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/them) 05:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No-three-in-line problem 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 Eviolite -- Eviolite ( talk) 02:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The article No-three-in-line problem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No-three-in-line problem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite ( talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216
|
-- Innisfree987 ( talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
The article No-three-in-line problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No-three-in-line problem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite ( talk) 04:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The article Three utilities problem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Three utilities problem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair ( talk) 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I was on my way to file an ANI notice when the "skip the drama" suggestion at WP:ANI caught my eye and it occurred to me to post here first. But please let me know if you'd prefer that I just go straight to ANI. You might remember a few months ago when User:ThurstonMitchell was diffusing women out of non-diffusing academic categories, so that they were only classified as (say) "women political scientists" and not as "political scientists". The relevant conversation was here. Similarly, over the last 2 days BostonMensa has been using HotCat to take women out of non-diffusing parent categories so that they are only in subcategories. After their first round of edits I attempted to start a conversation here, but rather than engaging, they just re-did one of the edits I objected to (it violates WP:EGRS point 5, and the category is specifically marked as non-diffusing). I then commented again on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion, and pointed them to the conversation I tried to start with ThurstonMitchell about the same thing at Category talk:American women political scientists. Instead of engaging in either discussion, they resumed today using automated editing tools to remove women from their professional categories because they are in a non-diffusing subcategory: see e.g. 1, 2, 3. Again, let me know if you'd rather I post at ANI instead. - Astrophobe ( talk) 22:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I submitted my PhD dissertation yesterday so I was a bit preoccupied.I'll bet -- congrats! -- JBL ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Three utilities problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Three utilities problem for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair ( talk) 05:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The Mathematics Barnstar | ||
For over 15 years of dedicated editing and hard work that you have put in to improve hundreds of articles related to mathematics — elevating dozens of them to good article status. Your work is commendable and you are an asset to the project. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
...in this discussion, and I thought you'd like to know as you were not pinged. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi David. You should know, Infinity Knight has filed a complaint about you at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conduct of David Eppstein. – Joe ( talk) 08:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
On 5 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feedback arc set, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for round-robin sports tournaments, finding a ranking of the competitors that minimizes the number of upset games is an instance of the feedback arc set problem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feedback arc set. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Feedback arc set), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 00:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Well done. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing my attention to WP:DISINFOBOX on the Mariolina Padula page, I wasn't aware of the standards surrounding infoboxes. Will keep this in mind going forward! Best, Coolcactus04 ( talk) 23:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Based on your comment in the category talk discussion, I gather that you would have opposed the recent effort to delete the entire category tree of alumni categories. I think this is poised to be a recurring problem, and despite the outcome of that discussion I think we are headed towards an RfC on the question of whether such categories should exist and perhaps how they should be used. This may be something of a pitched battle, so I would certainly appreciate your input on the best solution to the controversy. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi David,
Thank you for working to improve the fast inverse square root article--I don't remember if I ever thanked you for the work on it at any point in the last decade so I figure I should do so now. :)
This blog post was just added to the page. I suppose you'll see it on the watchlist but I felt it might be interesting to you independently as you worked on the article. Protonk ( talk) 21:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I sincerely thank you for assisting, and I am totally sorry for the misguided post, which I considered to be uncontroversial and now realize how much it is. I copied the discussion to my talk page and will point to it on the article's talk page. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 18:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I had nominated binary search tree for GA a few weeks ago since I believe it meets the criteria. Would you be willing to give it a review, or any remarks, if you have some free time? Thanks, WikiLinuz🍁( talk) 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
On 15 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No-three-in-line problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one can place 16 pawns on a chessboard such that no three pawns lie on the same line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No-three-in-line problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, No-three-in-line problem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 6,527 views (543.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/she) 06:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square pyramidal 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 Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 02:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regular 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
On 20 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three utilities problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is impossible to draw non-crossing lines from three houses to three utilities (pictured) in a plane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three utilities problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Three utilities problem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile ( talk) 12:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 17,408 views (1,450.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) ( they/she) 01:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, David Eppstein! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Regular number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regular number for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shushugah -- Shushugah ( talk) 11:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Season's Greetings | ||
Here's wishing you a marvellous holiday and the best of 2022 Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC) |
The article Square pyramidal number you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Square pyramidal number for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 10:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The article Square pyramidal number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Square pyramidal number for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel ( talk) 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219
|
-- Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
This diff is beautiful. Thanks! jp× g 22:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
The Women in Red Barnstar | ||
Thank you for making numerous articles on women, especially by reducing the number of redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships. Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC) |
Much respect to you~ SpiralSource ( talk) 09:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
I see that you have removed every mention of hyperfactorial from Factorial. Nevertheless Hyperfactorial still redirects here. IMO, it should be redirected to K-function, but this require some editing of the new target. Thanks in advance for fixing this issue. D.Lazard ( talk) 22:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive | |
January 2022 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive.
Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).
A token of thanks
Hi David Eppstein! I've
nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk ~~~~~
|
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)