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. |
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)
Thanks for fixing my mistake. I should have checked a little more carefully. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for the help with Frances Rosamond's page. Kangwang (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC) |
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) |
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)
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)
On 17 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Vázsonyi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Andrew Vázsonyi became past president of The Institute of Management Sciences without ever having been its president? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Vázsonyi. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
On 20 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William W. Cooper, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that William W. Cooper, a pioneer of management science, dropped out of high school and worked as a professional boxer before becoming an academic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William W. Cooper. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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:
Renowned author of geometry textbooks in former soviet union
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)
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)
On 26 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karl Beth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Karl Beth is considered one of the founding fathers of the psychology of religion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Beth. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
((proposed deletion/dated...))
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)
are on YouTube, dude!
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)