User talk:David Eppstein/2012d

Rick Berry - reference to Phil Hale "afekted gives me a blank page and/or a malware warning.) (undo)

Hello David, My first time as an editor/contributor. Could you give the website www.afekted.com/2011/02/14/inspiration-interview-phil-hale/ another try. Phil Hale met Rick Berry at 16, and Berry taught him to paint. I did find it annoying and slow, but it is loading quicker now. If not, I will try and find another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rerskine (talk • contribs) 20:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This time it loaded quickly, but then interrupted the load with a malware warning again:

"Warning: Something's Not Right Here!

www.afekted.com contains content from juniorcpa.info, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site.

Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and ::perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else.

We have already notified juniorcpa.info that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on juniorcpa.info, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Flory–Schulz distribution

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I should have checked a little more carefully. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Potter's School

I see you answered my notice about the article The Potter's School. Thanks for checking in on it. I don't care what happens to it myself,I just saw in the PROD list it had been waiting for a while. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 21:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Sardinians

Please stop to vandalize and destroy the work of other users, you can't erase every reference to people because they haven't an article that speak about them in the english speaking wikipedia, otherwise you can start articles about personalities that haven't it, but you can't erase them, without ask to other members, because it's getting annoying! In this case we are speaking about an article of wikipedia, not a "category" like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_from_Sardinia

Daygum (talk)

Hi Daygum!

Try to relax a bit. Let me try to explain what's happened.

English Wikipedia has policies to protect living persons and to ensure quality of articles and lists. If a claim---for example that Mr. NiceMan is a notable person from Sardinia---lacks references to a reliable source, then any editor is free to remove the claim, and it should not be restored until a reliable source is provided. You can imagine that this policy prevents problems for Wikipedia and real-world people. Just provide reliable sources documenting the persons' attachment to Sardinia.

Please don't call David's edits, which are consistent with policy, "vandalism". Vandalism is a severe offense. Please consider removing that complaint.

The criterion of greatest importance is that there be a reference to a reliable source. There need not be an article about the person on English Wikipedia. (Of course, excessive red-links are just distracting.)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

In particular, see WP:LISTPEOPLE. We cannot accept unsourced redlinks or unlinked names in such lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for the help with Frances Rosamond's page. Kangwang (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the barnstar. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!

Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Coarse SVG on Commons

This is too blury and requires 13Meg.

This is too coarse, especially when the complete svg file uses only 83k.

Hi David!

I uploaded some SVG guitar-chord images to Commons, to reduce storage from the PNG files. Unfortunately, Commons automatically coarsened the images, so that the suggested address is unusable. (Even the finest SVG image uses only 83k, which is less memory than the bloated 13Meg wasted by the current PNG thumbnail, so this coarsening makes no sense.)

Is there a way to link directly to the superior SVG images (instead of the default, coarse image)? Is there a way to control the coarsening when I upload future images?

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

SVG is supposed to be a vector graphics format, in which an image is represented by a collection of objects like line segments, characters, circles, etc. In contrast, PNG represents an image by a collection of pixels at a fixed resolution. However, when I look inside your SVG file, what I see is that it contains a single png-file object, i.e. a collection of pixels at some particular image size. So somehow your image got pixelated before you saved it as an SVG file, and you need to fix that and instead save a file that still has the individual vector-graphics objects in order to get it to scale better. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I should have thought of that.

I simply converted my PNG file to a SVG file using Inkscape. I had generated the PNG file using GIMP and pasting the image from my PDF document (from LaTeX).

I'll try to paste the pdf image direct into InkScape. (I'm using Windows.)

Thanks!

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been some improvement. I need to work on conversion in Inkscape. But my first attempts resulted in Svg files that were again converted into uselessly coarse svg files. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Rationality of Brun's constant

Regarding [1], I agree with the objection at Talk:Brun's theorem#Rationality. Do you have evidence to support "only if" in your statement "Brun's constant is a rational number if and only if there are finitely many twin primes"? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew Vázsonyi

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Clebsch graph

I see that you reverted a Clebsch change, instead of only removing the WP selfref (as I did just a moment ago). Bad style. Concerning the facts here: I know about some fifty papers that give Clebsch valency 10, and about some fifteen papers that give Clebsch valency 5. Clearly there is confusion here, and that should be mentioned. About the "real" Clebsch graph: I think the only way to decide is to read the paper by the author who baptised this graph. (But it may not be unreasonable to give priority to actual usage - but that is more difficult to establish, and may differ between different groups of mathematicians.) 213.84.53.62 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(I believe that replacing prose with notation is a big step back in readability, and I don't think we need to change much other than to say that some authors use the other meaning)

I agree that words are better than symbols. But you make Wikipedia state something that is not true, namely that the Clebsch graph "is" ... The paper by Cameron referred to uses the opposite choice. My choice would be to work towards an article that has a part on the folded 5-cube and a part on the halved 5-cube and a sentence that says that Seidel defined the Clebsch graph as the halved 5-cube, and that that use is quite common, but that one nowadays also sees many authors that define the Clebsch graph to be the folded 5-cube. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(rewrite to acknowledge the variation in naming)

OK, excellent. There is a spurious "It" at the end of the intro (but perhaps you are still in the process of editing something?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.53.62 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for William W. Cooper

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Chinese remainder theorem, "No, this is standard and basic modular arithmetic."

Hi David Eppstein,

In the revision history you said:

No, this is standard and basic modular arithmetic. 3x3=1 (mod 4), so dividing both sides by 3, 3=1/3 (mod 4). Remove dubious {{dubious}} flag.

But that's not the part that I'm disputing. Please address my question on the talk page: How is it the case that (1/3) (mod 4) = 3 (mod 4)? Thanks, --Wykypydya (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Replied to your post on the talk page. --Wykypydya (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Karl Beth

All I can say regarding the issue of close paraphrasing you rightly mention in regard to this article is that, unfortunately, there are, like I said, few if any reliable sources which I have yet found on this subject. This article was, basically, started on the basis of the idea that any subject with an article in the Encyclopedia of Religion should also have an article here. With the possible exception of James Hastings, however, this seems to be, at least so far as I can see, one of the few articles in that source which has few if any items of substantive content related to it elsewhere. JSTOR contains several reviews of his books, but little if any discussion about the author himself. I've looked. Other databanks available to me aren't any better, and the internet as a whole doesn't seem any better. The two older sources I mentioned are in a language I don't read particularly well, so I can't use them myself. So, basically, much as I regret to say it, about the only useful source which is available to me on the subject is the EoR article. I wish I could find more, but, believe it or not, I've looked and to date found nothing useful from other sources to add to the article, and I didn't want to misrepresent the subject by making substantive changes regarding material from just about the only source I can to date find. The "five years" period regarding his marriage is one I can't really address - I honestly haven't found anything in other RS's which clarifies it. The fact of the naming of the staff of the university he attended is admittedly possibly excessive, but it did seem reasonable to indicate that a member of the Religiongeschichte Schule studied under other members of that group.
I wish I could bring the article up to DYK level, but haven't found the sources that I can read (not the German ones) to do so. That being the case, I guess you should feel free to make any changes to the article you see fit to make it conform to close paraphrase. At the time, the phrasing seemed reasonable, but, unfortunately, I haven't found any sources I can read other than the few already used to either address the issue regarding his wedding or the comparative importance of the university staff he studied under to verify their importance to this article.
Like I said, this and James Hastings seem to be to date the only two articles I have yet encountered in the EoR which aren't substantially well covered anywhere else. I will try to avoid similarly poorly sourced articles in the future. BUt, given that you haven't shared the frustration I have felt trying to find content on this subject, I think you might be more neutrally able to address the matters you raise, and, if you so see fit, I would welcome your doing so. I am a bit too negatively emotional about the topic myself at this point. Unfortunatley. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ewww, gross

Yes, it would have. Consider me suitably admonished and chagrined.

Love that the source in question carries the title Mathematical Cranks, though, which would seem to imply that "some" probably doesn't extend very far beyond the one example. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trihexagonal tiling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Physic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

on deletion of Kalipada Basu

Hello David Eppstein, actually I created the page on Kalipada Basu because the text books on algebra written by him are most influential in India and particularly in his native state of West Bengal. I have no conflict of interest or any interest of promotion of his name. I have already created 30+ articles on wikipedia and even the article Pavel Petrovich Korowkin created by me was reviewed by you. Though you cited copyright infringment I just copied the essential facts. Please post the page source in my sandbox and I will try to make it fit for wikipedia. Thanking you Solomon7968 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I will not undelete the page. It consisted almost entirely of sentences copied in their entirety from its source. Undeleting it would be a copyright violation, and would also be redundant because you might as well just go back to the source. My impression from the deleted article is that Basu is notable and deserves an article here, but it needs to be written in your own words, not words copied from somewhere else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not telling you to undelete the page but rather to paste the source in my sandbox or by creating any sub page in my namespace. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It would still be a copyright violation, no matter what namespace I put it into. Just go back to the newspaper article. All the same content is already there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2012

Okay then please e-mail it to me. If then also it is copyright violation then it is ok, I will not furthur disturb you. I just want a recommendation about whether the following authors are notable enough for including in wikipedia. If they are I will try to make the pages:

• ALEKSEI P KISELEV

Renowned author of geometry textbooks in former soviet union

• Roger Arthur Johnson Author of a influential book "Advanced Euclidean Geometry" which is commonly cited in other books and even in wikipedia

If you e-mail me this time you can be sure I will rewrite it wholely without any traces of copyright. Trust me Solomon7968 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

WP Deletion Sorting in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Deletion Sorting for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Karl Beth

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you're an admin

Please do your admin thing, and hide this comment by me. It's probably personal information regarding an personal interaction with the subject of the article being deleted. I shouldn't have mentioned it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate it. I realized my error a nanosecond after hitting the save page. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexagesimal notation

Hi,

I was unfamiliar with the notation for sexagesimal numbers used in the article Sexagesimal. The article separates digits by colons, with no distinction between the whole and fractional part of the number (e.g., 1/7 = 0:8:34:17:8:34:17). The convention I am familiar with separates digits by commas, but separates the whole and fractional part of the number with a semicolon (e.g, 1/7 = 0;8,34,17,8,34,17).

As far as I can tell, your edits introduced this new format to the article. Did you have a reason for this change? I feel the article should only use an accepted format and wonder if you have a source for the format you used. If there is a widely accepted source for the use of this format -- say in the mathematical community -- I see no reason to change it. However, if there isn't, I think we should follow the accepted notation used by Aaboe, Neugebauer and others.

Since I've raised this issue briefly on the article's talk page, you might want to reply there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

New to wikipedia etiquette

Hi, I appreciate your feedback and take it to heart. My next submission will be on a new topic. You are very fast. I was surprised to see my edits undone before I could document the talk page. The revised copy I submitted connects the notability of my work over +3 decades which is not clear in the version on display. My revision also includes categories and the picture should clear up concerns about my identity. Could you undo your actions? Thank you, Thomas 4efrswm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:AUTOBIO. You should not be editing an article about yourself. The proper procedure is that, if there are significant errors or omissions on the article, you should request changes on the article talk page and let others make the actual changes. But in general it's better to find subjects to edit here on which you don't have such as strong conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured images

I nominated your illustrations of the Shapley-Folkman lemma for featured-picture status.

Good work on the Operations Research heroes from the years of glory. :)

Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The comments have been thoughtful so far, and many may interest you. [2] Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither picture was promoted.

Apparently they use an un well documented vote-counting system, which require five supports more than opposes (as well as having few opposes).

It may be appropriate to relist and ask at the math and economics projects, and explain their rules, so that we get enough reviewers. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Brélaz

Dear David Eppstein,

I find rather incongruous your choice to put Daniel Brélaz in the (rather small) category of swiss mathematicians, amongst Euler, the Bernoullis, Kervaire and Haefliger! Brélaz is a politician who happens to have published two minor papers. He is an interesting character, but he is a politician, not a mathematician. If every swiss author of two minor papers in mathematics was in this category, the list would become gigantic and unreadable.

Regards, Sapphorain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphorain (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably to classify him as a mathematician (despite him not being notable as a mathematician) because after all he did get a degree in mathematics and has taught mathematics. I agree that he is no match for Euler, the Bernoullis, etc., and currently the category looks small and unbalanced, but I expect that this mostly means that there are many other Swiss mathematicians that we haven't written about yet or who have not yet been properly categorized. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I can't say I agree with you. I think it's like categorizing Jacques Tati as a french tennis player... But I guess it doesn't bring to much harm to do so! Regards, Sapphorain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphorain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Klara Kedem for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Klara Kedem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klara Kedem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarahStierch (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability tags

David Eppstein, you removed my tags without properly addressing my notability concerns. I have restored them; see my comments on the article talk pages. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical exponent of a word‎

Hello. It's not a major issue, but you changed the style of some of the references in this article you left the edit summary Clean up mixed formatting of references and footnotes. Two points here: firstly it is, I believe, usual not to change the citation style of an article unilaterally, and secondly the phrase "clean up" suggests that you thought that there was something actually wrong with the previous style. Would you explain what that was, please? Oh, and I believe that putting an absolute measurement (=30em) into the reflist template may make the result display badly on some devices. But I'm not an expert on these matters. Deltahedron (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have appreciated the courtesy of a reply before you made very similar changes with the same sort of over-terse edit summary [3]. Deltahedron (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this the first time you posted here because of other later talk messages. It is indeed customary not to change *consistent* citation styles, but it is also considered good practice to change inconsistent styles to a single consistent style; see WP:CITEVAR. I consider having both footnotes and bulleted items within the same references section to be an inconsistency, and I also consider it to be inconsistent having some footnotes be parenthesized references to bulleted items while other footnotes give the full reference. As for the 30em: it is better to do it that way than to force a specific number of columns for readers who may have windows of greatly differing sizes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

And I consider the way I write citations to be quite consistent -- in the case of multiple citations of a single source I prefer to put the source in the list of references, in the case of a single citations of a single source I prefer to put it in as a note. I also prefer to have those citations all appear in the same section as the references. You prefer something else, obviously. But it is generally considered good practice not to change one style to another without discussion and consensus on talk pages, and I for one regard it as good practice not to refer to changing another editor's preferred style to your own as a cleanup or a fix. Deltahedron (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you consider it to be a single consistent style then I'll respect that. But it doesn't look consistent to me. Relatedly, is there a particular reason you're using the {{cite book}} series of templates rather than {{citation}}? One advantage of {{citation}} (other than avoiding doubled periods when editors have initials) is that it allows the use of {{harvtxt}} to produce Author (year) references that link to the full citation. Incidentally, I think the work you've been doing improving our coverage on combinatorics of words has been very helpful, regardless of our disagreements on minor formatting issues, so thanks for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. In reply to your question, no, not particularly, it happens to be what I'm used to. Deltahedron (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks. Deltahedron (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem

David Eppstein, do you realize that almost every response you have made to me on the subject of Toniann Pitassi has included an ad hominem attack? I am not out to get this article. I agree that the Google Scholar searches establish that she is well cited. However, an article can't exist in talk page space; there has to be some content in the article worth keeping - supported by reliable, independent sources. It would be a lot easier to fix the problems if you were willing to debate the issues calmly. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is rich coming from someone who made this edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have retracted that comment. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

LOGSPACE

There are some suggestions for improvement on the talk page (on added by myself). I don't know much about the topic off the top of my head, but perhaps you do... (There's also some reader feedback.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Moser spindle picture

I see you created the picture of the Moser spindle. It's described as a unit distance graph, but one of the lengths in the picture is not unity. I would fix it myself but I don't know how to. Occultations (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I created more than one image of that graph. File:Moser spindle pseudotriangulation.svg shows it as a planar graph and a pointed pseudotriangulation. File:Hadwiger-Nelson.svg shows it as a unit distance graph. And File:Hajos construction.svg shows it as an example of the Hajós construction. What do you think needs to be corrected about these images? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Is a unit distance graph a graph that can be drawn using only unit distances, or a graph that is drawn using only unit distances? If it's the former then no change is needed. If it's the latter then it needs to be the same shape as in File:Hadwiger-Nelson.svg.

Either meaning can be used. But when one is talking about an abstract graph (just a system of vertices and edges without any geometry) then the "can be" meaning is more natural. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Mary Lee Woods

Please elaborate on the changes needed, or point to guidance and/or examples of good practice that are relevant to an article about a person in this sort of situation.--TedColes (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wiener index, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Critical point and Divide and conquer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Baruch Awerbuch

Hi David,

I saw that you reverted my edit in Baruch Awerbuch. I want to know if Baruch is doing fine. Where is he and how is he doing? Arindam (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where he is exactly but the story I heard a few weeks ago had nothing to do with his physical health. It was more that he had a mental breakdown following his father's death and became unable to work. So it's still a sad story but without anything nefarious. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kempf–Ness theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complex vector space (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Arthur M. Hitch

Hello, David Eppstein. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur M. Hitch.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Natural Science (journal) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natural Science (journal) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Science (journal) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Tiling

Hello. You are invited to look at a few images
before  improving  "Pythagorean_tiling".
  109.6.129.249 (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I told you over on commons that I am finished responding to you, because I don't find your patterns of editing or dialogue to be constructive and I don't want my responses to start becoming too incivil. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand…
  109.6.129.249 (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're not the same person as Commons::User:Baelde? If not, I apologize, but since you have similar editing interests I assumed so. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to look at or add to a conversation at User talk:Aughost referring to this IP address. Deltahedron (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sofic

Hello, David Eppstein. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sofic, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Salimfadhley (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You and Justin Bieber

are on YouTube, dude!

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So the spam robots that try to fool the search engine robots into thinking they're legitimate content providers by scraping Wikipedia have moved on to video formats? Weird. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Longest path problem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Simple path and Critical path (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Arithmetic

Show me proof of your claim Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Floating point error prove the inaccuracy of multiplication as a separate entity for addition, because of the constraints that computer have to working with binary values all operations can be done in terms of addition. If you disagree I suggest you create a proof that I can review that show why addition does not work. I would like to know if real numbers cannot be accurately represented as addition. (non-integer numbers) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrydeanrsmith (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

When you multiply π by π, how do you represent it as a finite set of additions? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Golly Cellular Automata Simulator

I just cited you when contesting deletion of this article. Would you like to expand it a little? I note that Golly (program) redirects to Hashlife, but Golly supports several other algorithms so this doesn't seem right. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I added some more sources. It would be better if we could find a published review of this software rather than sources that mention it more or less incidentally, but that was the best I could find for now. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, it had already been prodded in 2007, so the recent proposed deletion shouldn't have happened — articles are only supposed to be prodded one time. But because you used a different article title, that might not have been noticed until too late.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

K Shortest Path Routing

Hi David. You're cited as a reference in this Articles for Creation draft - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K Shortest Path Routing. As the content is beyond various thresholds of mine, and possibly beyond useful comments by some AfC reviewers, you may wish to opine on the validity of the draft as a standalone article, or changes that may need to be made, or that the topic is already covered, or would be better included in, an existing article (e.g. Shortest-path routing), or that it's too close to original research, or anything else. Or, you may wish to turn it into a real Wikipedia article (with or without changes) while mentioning its origins in an edit summary. Cheers, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The topic is important, and the literature cited is by serious researchers, Ahuja, Golberg(er?), David, Althofer, etc. No alarm bells ring for me. (There is an apparently OR statement about the most cited paper in the field, however.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an important topic that I have been avoiding writing about here myself because of the conflict of interest (my paper on this subject is the most highly cited of all my publications). I don't really think it's accurate to say that I have done "a lot of work" on this subject, though, and I also don't think it's accurate to describe my algorithm as using breadth first search. (What it actually does is to transform the input graph G into an auxiliary graph H (with non-negative edge weights and bounded out-degree) in such a way that start-destination paths in G correspond one-for-one, in the same weight order, with start-any paths in H. From H, one can derive an infinite heap-ordered tree in which the nodes correspond to start-any paths and the parent of a node is a path with one less edge. Then, the algorithm applies a previously-published method for finding the k smallest items in a heap-ordered tree. The last part can be done a little less efficiently but more practically with best-first search but that's not the same as breadth-first search..) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David! I will try to point the submission down the appropriate path, and its author in your direction if necessary. I'll also try and tweak the parts that you think might not be quite accurate. It's certainly a lot more useful than most material that comes in via AfC! I do dimly remember some of this from computer science projects a looong time ago, but I think I was far from awareness of modern methodology on such things even then :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ross' conjecture

Thanks for your recent efforts tidying Ross' conjecture. Do you have a script/tool to expand jstor citations? I understand that autocomplete of {{cite jstor|}} has been disabled, but scraping this information from jstor can't be hard. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a program I wrote to convert from bibtex to citation format; in this case I got the bibtex from MathSciNet. I'd be happy to share the program by email but it runs only on OS X. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes please! I'll e-mail you. Gareth Jones (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Zarlor Mercenary Game of Life.

Why did you remove it? I put it down being as it is fact, why do you say it's trivial? Govvy (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Being a fact and being trivial are completely compatible with each other. In what way is it not trivial? What makes this particular easter egg special among game easter eggs, or among Game of Life implementations, if anything? Do you have a more mainstream source for it than a web site devoted to collecting obscure easter eggs, that could be used to convince someone that it is somehow more noteworthy than the other thousands of easter eggs out there, or the more-than-thousands of other Game of Life implementations out there? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to find something on the web, but I ended up asking Chuck Summerville why Life was added to the lynx game on facebook, i got a responce and posted it on my blog. But I am not sure if I can use it as a citation on WP:OR grounds. Govvy (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Govvy may or may not be placated by the author and substance of this helpful edit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trombi–Varadarajan theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spherical function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory (3rd nomination)

Hello David Eppstein. The above AfD was close by a non-admin, I believe prematurely, as a complex discussion was still continuing. Although consensus had not yet been obtained it is possible that it could be obtained by further debate. As a non-involved admin could you consider reopening the AfD? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC).

Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC).

My apologies if this was closed premature. After the long enough stream I felt it was split enough to warrant closure, but I guess there was enough people who wanted to reach a consensus. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barrow's inequality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:Base 30

Why did you delete: [4] on December 29?  As you nominated this article for deletion you are an involved editor, so it would appear that you should not be using your tools here.  Further, this article is currently at DRV, and editors should be able to see what attempts you made to resolve content issues on the talk page before you took the article to AfD.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I deleted only a single version of the talk page, which consisted of one long line of meaningless letters, like a cat walked on a keyboard. As such, it fit within a WP:CSD#G1 speedy. The other versions were deleted at the time the original AfD closed and have not been undeleted by anyone since. This was a boring administrative action that has nothing to do with whether or not the article should be restored. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)