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.

I notice you removed the {{db-transwiki}} tag from Urban Indian. That entry already exists at Wiktionary:Urban Indian, so wouldn't the {{db-transwiki}} tag be valid? = Axlq 20:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I searched there and didn't find it. Thanks for the pointer — I have speedy deleted it now under WP:CSD#A5. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a legitimate encyclopedia topic: [1], but I have no idea what was in the deleted article. Happy New Year! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The entire content was “Persons living in large metropolitan cities who are of Native American heritage.” — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag for expansion?  :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article contained nothing but a 1-line dictionary definition for some time (several weeks I think). If it's a topic worthy of expansion, I certainly won't object if someone re-creates the article with more information. = Axlq 02:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object either. But as it was it didn't add anything to the wiktionary link Axlq lists above. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The redirect from obecalp to placebo was legitimate IMHO. Obecalp, or "placebo" spelled backwards, is actually used by some physicians to refer to a placebo. See etymology section in the article. I suggest restoring the redirect, or at least discussing this. See also [2]. Cheers, -- Edcolins ( talk) 23:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, restored. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops - my bad - I should have checked before requesting the speedy. Thanks for fixing — G716 < ^T· _C> 06:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Edcolins ( talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the page deleted?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_AL-Hammouri MaD ( talk) 18:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (people). In order to have an article here about a person, they need to be notable, as indicated by the existence of reliable third-party published sources about the person that allow us to verify the information in the article. Al-Hammouri did not appear to pass that criterion; for instance, Google news archive finds no news articles about him. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for simplifying my comments on the light sculpture! Well done! Allyn ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 13:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng { chat} 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

David, you wouldn’t have at atmospheric photo for the European Symposium on Algorithms floating around? Thore Husfeldt ( talk) 09:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, I didn't take any photos on the Karlsruhe leg of my trip last September, nor at the previous ESA I attended. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting. Sandstein seems to think it's a can of worms, but the subject has plenty of coverage. Anyway, I think the concepts and considerations related to the term are interesting. I wrote it up based on the sources, so it actually has a stronger assertion of present relevance than I think reasonable, but rules are rules. I think it's more interesting as a concept and perspective on political relations a la Close Encounters of the Third Kind and other sci-fi conceptualizations. Anyway, I hope you won't get in any trouble for being the one to unprotect. I don't mind people thinking I'm kookie. I don't find these stories and mythologies any less crazy than reality. They're heeeeeeeeeeeeeere!  :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that you have deleted the Kenshin user (who has no contributions). Is it possible for me to change my username to Kenshin? Thanks! AKoan ( talk) 10:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the user page is not the same as deleting the user. If the user name has never been used as a login, I think you can just go ahead and make an account in that name and deactivate your existing one. But otherwise, you will need the help of a Wikipedia bureaucrat (which I am not one of) to make the change, and I'm not sure what policies allow or prevent it. — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! I thought that you were a bureaucrat! AKoan ( talk) 09:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you recently deleted the formula I contributed in 2004 or 2005 to the Wikipedia:Pythagorean triple article, because it was an "obfuscated attempt" to represent the equation with a single variable. I created the original Platonic Triangle entry which was later merged into Pythagorean triple with that equation. I believe the addition still has merit, as the equation is the simplest possible representation of the composite of the two functions, and is quite helpful for studying the sequence over all natural numbers. Do you have any suggestions on how I should reformat this to reinsert into the article?

Syncomm ( talk) 17:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The main suggestion is to find a reliable source in which this version of the formula has been published and described. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions what to do about this article? See the "bogosity" note on the talk page. Best place to answer is probably over there. 207.241.239.70 ( talk) 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Got a cite of the International you mention? LeadSongDog ( talk) 17:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Two of our other articles, Quantum electrochemistry and Revaz Dogonadze, cite papers from it. But on searching further I'm not convinced that it's a different journal or just a more detailed name for the same journal. I've taken out that line from the article until this is clarified, anyway. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx. I noticed that Revaz Dogonadze article needs some attention, esp. to citations. LeadSongDog ( talk) 17:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

About the link between combinatorial maps and rotation system.

I do not known the term "rotation system" before today, thanks for the link. However, combinatoral maps are define in n-dimension. I have cited in the page combinatoral maps the original definition which is the same than rotation system, but this is just to link with original works. Indeed, the main interest of combinatorial maps is the general definition in nD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaume Damiand ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Only three students are in the classroom and the lecture is dragging on. While the professor turns to the blackboard to write a long formula, five students slip away. The professor turns to the class and says disappointedly: “If two latecomers walk in, there'll be nobody left!” ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand why the page for Greg Prato has been deleted. He has a book coming out via ECW Press in April (in addition to the 2 books that he self-published). He also is a long-time writer for Allmusic and other sites and magazines - do a search on Yahoo and see how many of his reviews and articles come up. Thanks, Skybleu6

A single to-be-published book and some web site writing is far from satisfying WP:CREATIVE. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

He has written many magazine articles for Classic Rock Magazine, Total Guitar Magazine, Record Collector Magazine, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybleu6 ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just put up a post on WP:DRV. Skybleu6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybleu6 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

Today I have seen that in my article there is a problem (please look) --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolai_Shmatko

I am the author of this article. It is article about the Ukrainian sculptor (living on Ukraine)

If to speak about Shmatko he is known in Ukraine. What should I change in article?

I cannot understand that mean these marks in article. Help me to solve this problem.

I am the author of article placed on his site http://www.kingofmarble-shmatko.com/engver/Bioexe2.html , I have the right to use materials from the page of the biography this site.

I thank YOU for your answer.

Rafael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerter 2 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The issues I know of with the article are, first, that it does not clearly describe and more importantly document through published sources the accomplishments that would cause Shmatko to pass our guidelines in WP:CREATIVE for including articles on artists such as him. And second, that some specific facts claimed to be true within the article are not verifiable through reliable published second-party sources as is required by our guidelines and policies in WP:V and WP:RS. For instance, references to newspaper articles describing these facts would be appropriate. I could not even verify the existence of the "Moscow Institute of World Civilization" let alone Shmatko's appointment in it — Google searching for that phrase turns up only this article itself and another page apparently created by Shmatko. Unverifiable information cannot be permitted to remain on Wikipedia. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! Thanks for explanations, this article was addition to my article in Russianabou Shmatko.

It is difficult for me to understand, that marks concerning his date of a birth and not only institute are made. I saw a mark concerning his award for work for Laurels and have not understood, what documents it is necessary for the proof. In our country the law on the copyright works. It works from the moment of creation of work of art and we do not require registration of it. If you will searh in google many words, you cannot see result - not all organizations have the sites in English. In our countries the newspaper and magazines write articles and the basic information in Russian and the Ukrainian language. All information is easier to do search in Russian and you can see results. If you would like to check up the data, it is desirable to make official (written) inquiry to a management of institute, I think, you know it. I understand this YOUR right to remove this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerter 2 ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's ok to list Russian-language sources, as long as they're by someone other than Shmatko himself and published in a reputable newspaper, magazine, etc. As for copyright, you shouldn't copy the text of the source here; what you should do is use {{ citation}} to list the title, newspaper name, date, and (if possible) a url where the source can be found online. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of information in Russian. I have found many interesting articles, but in a basis it is new articles. You can see last videoreportings on the central channels.

http://www.dt.ua/3000/3680/63562/
http://www.umoloda.kiev.ua/number/388/119/14020/
http://news.lugansk.info/2007/lugansk/07/13859.shtml
http://www.ut.net.ua/art/169/0/123/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ukrainian/inpictures/story/2008/09/080929_gallery_27sep.shtml page 12
http://www.golos.com.ua/article/1213881349.html
http://mincult.kmu.gov.ua/mincult/uk/publish/article/120125;jsessionid=A3793CF2CFF203292801A49E77139FE3?mustWords=%D1%96%D0%BD%D1%84&searchPublishing=1
http://www.day.kiev.ua/4401/
http://www.stroyrec.com.ua/document.php?id=2753

video tv: http://www.k1.tv/uk/news/ukraine/2009/01/07/sculpture
http://www.vybory.novy.tv/reporter/ukraine/2007/08/14/19/21.html
http://tsn.ua/ua/glamur/skandali/u-lugansku-yuliyu-timoshenko-pobachili-povnistyu-goloyu-foto.html
http://www.stb.ua/newsv.php?item.16640
http://www.24tv.com.ua/ukraine/2008-02-09/6708.htm

I understand, to prove importance of the person in art very difficultly, especially if he lives today. In these articles it is mentioned his creative lives and the some periods. Certainly, it is impossible to find all official documents in press. In different newspapers it is possible to hear partial mentions. Is it possible to refer on the document (paper), for example in family archive or on what to refer about date of a birth?

—Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
Rerter 2 (
talk • 
contribs) 06:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 

All sources should be of a type that other people can look up and verify. Information that cannot be verified in this way should not be in the article here. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer!

I shall start with top of clause. I want to ask you to help me. What the information I should give in this place of clause? --- Nicolai Shmatko was born on 17th of August 1943 in Donetsk region, Ukraine.[citation needed]--- I cannot understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerter 2 ( talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It means: either add a reference to a newspaper article stating that he was born then or remove that information from the Wikipedia article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerter 2 ( talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you merged the history of this; it will just need to be split back out when the station is completed and the article is written. -- NE2 17:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just putting the history of the comments into the same place the comments themselves now are. I don't see why we can't have a new talk page with its own new history if in the future there is a new article with that name. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the history merge David. Acps110 ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! :-) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for deleting that article I made User: HannahMiley, I noticed that someone with no account on here edited it back in December 2008 and put I'm a bad singer and don't know why people like my music. I don't even sing. So Thanks again. HannahMiley ( talk)

Sure, glad I could help. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering why the article "Haggy" was deleted, and what gives you the authority to do so? I find it quite frightening that out of over millions of articles, you were able to find and request deletion of the article within 4 hours of creation. Please also realize people dedicate a considerable amount of effort and time to articles from their busy schedules. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaggyTheMagnificent ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I did almost the opposite of what you accuse me of: I declined the requested speedy deletion of that article. It was NawlinWiki who deleted it, after I had moved it to a better name, John Hagadorn. Please see WP:N and WP:PROF for the reasons it might have been deleted, or WP:DRV if you think you have a legitimate reason to protest this decision. As for what gives me and NawlinWiki the authority: see Wikipedia:Administrators. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall proceed to talk to NawlinWiki, thanks and no hard feelings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.162.68 ( talk) 23:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the context ought to suppress thoughts of avoirdupois, but fair 'nuff, and you've caught nearly all the usages too. I couldn't work out how to cause a subscript "2" to manifest though a superscript "2" was available via a special character. Previous usage of log_2 had generated obtrusively large bold text, as in the initial usages towards the head of the article (and with the round-up symbols known only to a few) in the "Examples" and I don't see why. Your alterations achieved the right result without strain. Though the rendition on a low-resolution device such as a screen (about ninety dots per inch) is not well done, but slapdash typography is the style of the internet. Kerning and ligatures are forgotten, it seems. And I'm irked by the use of blank lines rather than indentation at the start of a paragraph too. And... Oops! Enough! NickyMcLean ( talk) 19:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime I found in Binary logarithm a statement that the ISO has declared lb to stand for the binary logarithm. But they don't speak for computer scientists, and as far as I know within computer science the usage is universally either lg or log₂. I think for Wikipedia purposes the log₂ notation, as the least ambiguous, is probably best. By the way, WP:MOSMATH recommends against using the special character for superscript 2, because it doesn't match the size and spacing of other superscripts generated by the html ^... tags. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ménage problem, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky ( talk) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, James Matador, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Matador. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handrem ( talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, thanks for the notification, but I don't remember editing this article and don't see my name in the history. You sure you didn't send this notification to the wrong place? — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey David, just wanted to thank you for the correction on the Overturned speedy deletion entry on Greg Prato. I apologize if my incomplete impressions misrepresented the case, I'm trying my best to be neutral. Thanks again. Dcoetzee 10:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this article was created today, I did some cleanup, but perhaps you could have a look to see whether this person (a mathematician) is notable enough. Thanks. -- Crusio ( talk) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

41 papers in MathSciNet (no books, contrary to what the article said, unless you count editorship of a festschrift shared with four other people), a couple papers with 50+ citations in Google scholar; it's not enough to make me take active steps to delete the article such as prodding it or nominating it for AfD, but I'm not convinced. I tagged it for notability in hope that will jar loose something else to make him look more notable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a link to her obit, if you want to read the full text. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you have recently closed AfD debate(s) early and would like to direct you to a discussion currently in progress at the administrators noticeboard here relevent to the early closures of AfDs. Thankyou and happy editing! Sorry if you are already aware of this discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did already see that. But I think the only AfD's I've closed early recently have been procedural ones due to speedy deletion of the article under discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You recently removed the speedy deletion template from The Best Of The Hamiltonization Process because the artists page exists, but this article is a mixtape, not an album, and according to WP:NALBUMS, mixtapes are not notable without significant coverage. --  Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 05:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If so, it's likely that it would not survive a full AfD — please go ahead and start one. But the requirements for speedy deletion are more specific than that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this article eligible for A7 speedy deletion because it is about unremarkable web content? Or is this intended to only mean websites? Thanks. Xenocide ^{Talk| Contributions} 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think of programs that happen to be downloadable from the web, but that are run on one's own computer, as being web content, even if (as in this case) their primary function is to automate one's interactions with web content. And in this case it also has some claims of notability as being one of the most popular cheat programs in use, so even if it counts as web content it's likely not A7-eligible. But there's nothing preventing it from being prodded or taken to AfD. I seriously considered taking it to AfD myself but ended up not being sure whether it should be deleted or whether it would be possible instead to fix up the article with proper sources. If you're more confident about that, please do nominate it for deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Victor Vacquier, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky ( talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello David, please help--I'm trying to learn math (haha) and thought I'd start with set theory, but I have a nagging suspicion that there is a grammatical mistake in the second paragraph, in this sentence: "For instance; three cups on a table when spoken of together as "the cups", or the chalk lines on a board in the form of the opening and closing curly bracket symbols along with any other symbols in between the two bracket symbols." Would you mind having a look? Thanks, your math-challenged fellow WPer, Drmies ( talk) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely ungrammatical: there's no verb. I tried fixing it but I don't really understand the philosophical distinction being made in this part. Fortunately one can do mathematics without knowing whether sets are physical objects. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? So ... I have no excuse?? Thanks for the cleanup. Drmies ( talk) 15:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! This IP address called you a C-student! I'm sure your feelings are hurt, so let me just say, a C doesn't disallow you from becoming president (of your neighborhood association, for instance). ;) Drmies ( talk) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I've added some questions for you so that I can understand in specific what may be done to address your issues. -- Avi ( talk) 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've marked Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory) with a cleanup tag and commented on the talk page. Can you clarify? Michael Hardy ( talk) 07:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

David, the anon is right, G(16) is at least 64. For, the 16-th power of an odd number is ${\displaystyle \equiv 1{\pmod {64}}}$, the 16-th power of even numbers is divisible by 128, so all numbers divisible by 64 but not by 128 require 64 16-th powers. The same argument gives that ${\displaystyle G(N)\geq 4N}$ if N is a power of 2, and is at least 4. Kope ( talk) 21:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've undone my undo. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually just using the equation immediately to the left of the table, which says that ${\displaystyle G(2^{r})\geq 2^{r+2}}$ - Tom Wright (anon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.31.161 ( talk) 05:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out once Kope persuaded me to look more carefully. Sorry for the confusion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Creator of article has had user and talk pages deleted; so I'm posting the notice here as per template. After spending a lot of time trying to edit the problems in this article, I discovered that it appears to be plagiarized from a copyright-protected source. See EL section that I added just prior to discovering that. Thanks. -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Champika Liyanaarachchi

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Champika Liyanaarachchi, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.cjaweb.com/index.pl/article?id=91222, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Champika Liyanaarachchi saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! NYScholar ( talk) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The other possibility is that the CJA cribbed it from Wikipedia or another Wiki and did not acknowledge the Wiki as the source--feedback loop possibility. -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC) There is, however, both an author credited and a copyright notice at the bottom of the webpage that suggests the first possiblity may be more likely. -- NYScholar ( talk) 03:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I have little interest in this article (if I were an interested party I shouldn't have been the one closing the AfD). If it's a copyvio, it's a copyvio and it should be speedily deleted. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But there is no one else to notify, since everyone else in between the creator (who is banned/deleted) and you seemed to object to keeping the article and wanted to delete it and was not editing it to keep it (it appears from perusal of editing hist.). -- NYScholar ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try the people who suggested keeping it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Champika Liyanaarachchi. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

John McKay (the group theorist) has made a number of strange edits, always as an IP editor as far as I know, often from Japan. I usually move them to the talk page. Brendan McKay (the graph theorist) is User:McKay I believe, and usually edits logged in. JackSchmidt ( talk) 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that explains my confusion. I had mixed the two of them up somehow. Thanks for the clarification. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your issue is raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Some_wikihounding_going_on. THF ( talk) 11:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats just nuts, but seriously, you cant take a picture of yourself and release it under an acceptable license for the article ;) Nableezy ( talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That was off-topic enough to make me do a double-take before I figured out what you were talking about, but anyway. I could, sure. I even have a picture of myself that I took myself and am reasonably happy with, on my home page, though it shows what my mirror image looks like rather than what I look like to other people. Or this one that I like even better, by someone else who could probably be persuaded to do the free licensing thing. Or maybe even this one though I'm not quite so happy with how I look in it. This one might work, too, but it's by my daughter and I don't know how the legal issues work for releasing a photo by a minor. But every time the subject comes up, I say that I don't want to pick the photo myself and add it to the article myself, I want someone else to pick which photo to use, to ask me whether it can be used, and to take responsibility for adding it to the article, because it's not supposed to be an article that I make substantive changes to myself other than factual corrections. And every time I say that, I get no response. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as the one by your daughter, I *think* there is no issue if it is by a minor, only if it is of minor, if you as her parent also sign off on the license, but we could definitely ask somebody who knows (wait, dont you work at a university with a public law school?). I think that one is the best for an article, but the other one with the photo around your neck would be nice as well, though you are a professional professor while an amateur photographer, so I wonder if your primary profession should be shown. I have an idea though, just offer a small amount of extra credit to whichever student can take the best picture of you and release it under an acceptable license. That should work nicely. Nableezy ( talk) 05:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As an (amateur) photographer, my other issue with the one by my daughter is that half my face is severely overexposed. But I see what you mean about showing me wearing a mathematical T-shirt vs wearing a camera. Though the camera one was taken while I was at a Graph Drawing conference...

Anyway, I just checked with my wife and daughter, and they both prefer this one. Why don't I check with the photographer and see if I can get the appropriate permissions to upload, and stop all this dithering. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the amateur, I just meant not professional as it would be pretty interesting, and worthy of mention in the article, if you were also a professional photographer, but the pics on your site are very nice, at least to an amateur photograph viewer. I was actually going to say on the article talk that you should upload the one in the mirror under cc-3, and just to spite all CS profs we should un-mirror it and use that. Mine werent so nice not so long ago, they generally seemed to have a problem with laziness when it comes to commenting code. Nableezy ( talk) 09:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take "amateur" as an insult at all; it's an accurate description. As for the mirrored one, it's strange but I don't like the way it looks un-mirrored. But I've received a positive reply from the other one and will proceed with that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's up. See Talk:David Eppstein#Photo. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I provided a reliable source. TH said it was inappropriate for lack of source, read the talk. No more reverting without justification! Don't draw me into an edit war, I'm tired of this professor. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 03:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear 'computer colleague" David Eppstein, please bcan you explain your sentence:

"Boubaker to promote himself inappropriately as the discoverer of something that he didn't discover"? Thanks. Etaittunpe ( talk) 22:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't believe that is a sentence I wrote, but perhaps you can provide a diff to prove my memory faulty. In case anybody else wants some context, this probably has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination) (in which Etaittunpe is one of a very large number of single-purpose accounts), Etaittunpe's attempts to game the AfD by editing Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), some related sockpuppetry in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmbmmmbm, and possibly even m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear colleague, I told I am your colleague, you can easily check that my IP is from Romania, (if you want me to give you emeil, or telephone , OK) your sentense is from that page ,you posted it yesterday, 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC) So can you kindly explain this sentence?? Thank you Etaittunpe ( talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I found it: [3]. What I meant is that Chebyshev polynomials have been around for a long time, so obviously Boubaker didn't discover them. But he is promoting himself as the discoverer of "Boubaker polynomials", which are the same thing as Chebyshev polynomials. So in that sense he is promoting himself as the discoverer of something he didn't discover. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Boubaker polynomials", are the same thing as Chebyshev polynomials??? are you sure ?? any hit in google can give you tens of publicatioins on Boubaker polynomials (some publication are on compaison between the two polynomials....) please clear this, perhaps you are not well informed?? Etaittunpe ( talk) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what does disingenious mean? Etaittunpe ( talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It means pretending to be ignorant. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I pretended nothing, but I really ignore why you erased my comment from its place :

CommentWould you change your mind if there are 30 peer-reviewed sources involving more than 30 authors from more than 11 countries ??? Just say Yes or No to save time?

in the discussion page ?? Etaittunpe ( talk) 03:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Would you kindly allow me undo this act??

I did not intentionally erase anything. However you and your single-purpose-account colleagues have so overrun the AfD that something needed to be done to make it possible for others to follow the arguments. Other editors argued for moving the comments elsewhere such as the talk page; instead I opted for a less drastic solution, to put them into show-hide boxes. My intention was for your comment to be in one of these; if instead I accidentally deleted it, you're welcome to put it back, but please don't move it from inside one of these boxes to back outside. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As you were involved in some of the recent discussion and debate about the images in the article on Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a separate proceeding was brought to try to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. .. ... Kenosis ( talk) 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey there friend. I know you've now taken it to AfD, but for future reference software doesn't come under the A7 criteria. We are very strict about this and usually reject such speedy deletions unless they also come under a different criterion (Advertising, for instance). Thanks!-- Patton ^{t/ c} 13:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very aware that software is not A7-able. That's why I took it to AfD. What made you think I thought otherwise? — David Eppstein ( talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I signed in to my account today to realize you tagged my user page for deletion. I was creating an entry for Mainebiz, a business newspaper in Maine. I was under the impression the user page was a good place for people to work on and edit pages before submitting them for inclusion in Wikipedia. Your note on my page says it was deleted because it's blatant advertising, which I strongly disagree with. Nothing in the entry was boostery at all. It was just facts presented about the company and its place as Maine's only business news publication. If you delete that entry, please also delete the Wikipedia entries for the following, as they are blatant advertising: The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Crain Communications Inc., American City Business Journals, the Orlando Business Journal, Hemmings Motor News. If these publications have Wikipedia entries, then Mainebiz deserves its entry. Even you have a personal Wikipedia entry -- advertising yourself are you? Please fix this injustice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badarchin ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've undeleted it. We have a problem with some users attempting to get around our notability restrictions by putting articles in user space and making them look like real articles, but with no attempt to document any actual notability for their subjects; your page was mistaken as something of that nature, and I apologize for that. But I think it would be a good idea to work on including sufficient third-party reliable sources concerning the notability of this company, as a way to protect it against similar mistakes in future. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes here, I was just about to come by and let you know I restored it. – xeno ( talk) 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And better to be stepping on toes both doing the same thing than contradicting each other, I think. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite right ;> – xeno ( talk) 21:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Sorry if I came off like a jerk in my first post. I'm new to wikipedia and was caught a bit off guard when I signed in and was told the entry I was working on had been deleted. I can understand your concern with people trying to advertise with their user page. I did read the wikipedia guidelines about blatant advertising before writing the entry. I thought I was writing it from a purely objective standpoint. Though, I'll try to include some more third party sources in the entry. Thanks for undeleting it so quickly. Badarchin ( talk) 00:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive comments. The WP:Article Rescue Squadron really works hard to improve articles. I even notified a Mr. Universe a few weeks ago, and had a half hour conversation with him. the AfD was withdrawn, and the article was kept. today i notified a gay and lesbian organization asking for sources, and a week ago I notified a church for the same reason. Thank you again for your kind words. Ikip ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this article might interest you. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit summary. [4] Concern over the material was expressed here [5] also. Ty 09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You wrote in talk:combinatorial proof that you "could find no reliable source for the claim that such proofs are commonly referred to via this phrase." Please note that I did not claim that they are commonly referred to by this phrase; what I do assert is that they have been referred to that way. And, more to the point, I also wrote (in my last comment on that page) of my view that "the informal comment merits retention in the article because the simile provides a useful analogy to help people understand the idea behind the proof technique."

I don't imagine you're looking for a notarized affidavit that I have heard the term used as I described. And anyway, I think that assiduously documenting prior usage misses the point: would you be satisfied if I wrote merely that one way to think of this approach is as a Jeopardy! proof?— PaulTanenbaum ( talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how it is worded. I can see room in the article for describing the process of coming up with such a proof as being like Jeopardy in that one has an answer (there are this many) for which one has to find a question (how many x are there?). But that's quite different from saying they have been called “Jeopardy proofs”, which without further explanation doesn't seem very helpful and which requires at least one instance of a reliable source calling them that.

Thank you for pointing out that Grünbaum's definition of a convex polytope, as a compact convex set, is equivalent to the convex hull definition. Given the importance of Grünbaum's book, would it be worth while making this point in the article?

Also, I notice that the relevant section uses "representation" and "definition" interchangeably in the text, which I find unhelpful. Would you have any objection to sticking to one of these throughout, say "definition"?

-- Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 14:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can add it, and if you find part of Grünbaum's wording confusing we don't have to follow it. The part from the Grünbaum definition that seems most worth mentioning, to me, is that it tells you which points a given convex polytope is the convex hull of, rather than just saying (there exists a point set having this hull). Of course, there are other point sets having the same hull, but ext is the minimal one. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I wrote here, "If there is any reason to retain the section in this article, please let us know what it is!". Since you are so keen to retain the section, I would be grateful if you could give some justification in that discussion. -- Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)