| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard M. Pollack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Death edit
Please note: your use of the mailing list source, with content claimed as reported by another mathematician, has been deemed unreliable at Deaths in 2018, and the subject of this article removed from the list. I would strongly suggest that the same applies to this article. Ref (chew)(do) 05:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- It's not by "another mathematician". It's signed by the entire steering committee for the Symposium on Computational Geometry. (I also received by a different channel a similar message signed by another group of people, the organizers of the Courant Geometry Seminar.) And forgive me if I don't take a single editor's reversion on a different article as a definitive consensus of the Wikipedia editorship on policy concerning such matters. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Deaths pages are never a "single editor" effort, and business is carried out strictly by consensus among many. It's the strictness that has brought editors at that page to a so-far slim consensus on the reliability of said "source". Forgive me if I don't go against our consensus in formulating my reply to you. Ref (chew)(do) 06:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- If you wish to use the link we have discovered to reintroduce his name into the ranks of the Deaths page, it's this one, which appears to be an online version of the mailing list used here at present: https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/compgeom-announce/2018-09/msg00005.html. Thanks, and good editing. Ref (chew)(do) 11:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- The Deaths pages are never a "single editor" effort, and business is carried out strictly by consensus among many. It's the strictness that has brought editors at that page to a so-far slim consensus on the reliability of said "source". Forgive me if I don't go against our consensus in formulating my reply to you. Ref (chew)(do) 06:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)