Archives

2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b 2008c, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c 2009d, 2009e 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. For discussions concerning specific Wikipedia articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

If some famous professor writes a draft paper and submits it to a journal in 2015, by 2020 it should either have been accepted, or the content doesn't belong in Wikipedia.[1] What's the current status of this paper? Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have no experience with the tedious and drawn-out process of getting journal versions of theoretical computer science papers refereed and published. Even in simple cases it often takes over a year, and I can point to cases like Baker's technique where it took over ten. In the meantime the result was published, in what counts as proper publication for the field, in STOC in 2016, and he had a follow-up paper published in STOC 2019. These are peer-reviewed publications; the standard for such conferences is that all papers get at least three in-depth reviews, and most submissions are rejected. Many theoretical computer scientists would have left it at that point rather than even making the effort to get an additional journal publication out of it. There are papers where the lack of a journal version has been problematic and has led to controversy over whether the results should be accepted as true; this is not one of them. Maybe if it is still not published another five years from now people might begin to wonder, but at this point the publication delay appears to be merely par for the field. As for "what is the current status of this paper": not transparent to us. Usually even the authors can only get answers to this question by repeated and severe nagging of the editors handling the submission. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I lost you at "You obviously." Try to be more polite if you want to convince somebody of something. If there's some long drawn out process, that needs to be explained in the article. Otherwise it looks weird for some five year old, unaccepted paper to be there. No doubt there's advanced math and set theory and it's hard to verify the proof. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt. But when you're ignorant of the basic publication norms of a field, come blustering in thinking that this sort of delay must have some great meaning that it doesn't have, and based on that incorrect assumption start removing information that is of great significance to the article, a little condescension seems in order. And no, the article on graph isomorphism is not the place to explain typical review time-periods in theoretical computer science journal publication, even if published sources on that topic could be unearthed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, could you send me an email? I’d like to forward you a message from one of the foremost living theory of computation authorities who I consulted. The finding has not been proven or accepted yet. Wikipedia needs to frame this carefully. Jehochman ^Talk 01:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's...an infelicitous way of phrasing it, one that misses a lot of subtlety. The proof has been written and made available, so saying it "has not been proven" as an absolute statement is inaccurate. The proof has been publicly stated to be accepted, by Harald Helfgott, who made a careful study of it and was the one who found the bug in the earlier version [2], so saying it "has not been accepted" as an absolute statement is equally inaccurate. It has also been published, in a preliminary (and pre-bugfix) but peer-reviewed form, in STOC 2016, and in still-preliminary but post-bugfix form in the proceedings of the ICM, so saying it has not been peer-reviewed or that it has not been published would also be inaccurate. It has not been published in full detail in an archival journal form, and until it has it should be considered as a preliminary announcement rather than as an accepted result. We can certainly say something of that nature in the article. But it is widely expected to be valid (different from accepted as being valid) and ripping it out entirely as you did as being "unverified speculation" is nonsensical, wrongheaded, mistaken, and detrimental to the encyclopedia. As for forwarding to me emails from respected authorities: what was it you were saying in the first sentence of your first comment above about appeals to authority? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to like authority I thought you'd enjoy hearing what mine had to say. You'd be surprised how often a professor will respond to a friendly message asking them for advice how to improve Wikipedia. Anyhow, I think the announcement can stay in the article, so long as we present it correctly. I'll go make an edit, and if you want to revise, please do. Jehochman ^Talk 18:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you worked on Ronald Graham and wondered if you would be interested in helping me to improve John Horton Conway to GA status. I started thinking about this because Graham, Conway, and Dyson were just mini-profiled in The New Yorker. Have a good 2021 either way. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can make minor edits if necessary on Conway's article and would be happy to see it reach GA status but it's not really one of my priorities right now. So I wish you well on your project but I don't think you can count on me for a lot of effort on it. If there's some specific part of the article that you think I have expertise in and need help with, though, please let me know. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article De quinque corporibus regularibus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ján Kepler -- Ján Kepler (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment about revising the article to be more neutral and encyclopedic; is there a particular section (or sections) that you think should be revised? Guidance appreciated. EEParsons (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(This is re new article Ken Parsons, Professor.) Your user name suggests that you have a conflict of interest and should not be touching the article at all. But for starters, is it really the case that his full name is "Ken Parsons Professor Professor Ken Parsons"? Sort of like "Bond James Bond" only even more repetitive? (see MOS:DR: usually we omit titles such as Dr. or Prof. altogether.) As for my "like resume" tag: that was directed at the apparently indiscriminate listing of all positions held and of publications (not described as selected); some of the important differences between an encyclopedia article and a cv are that we try to tell a story about the life rather than a bare listing, we generally omit the unimportant details such as editorial board memberships and consulting gigs, and we base everything on what we can find in reliable published sources rather than using our own knowledge of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

David, thanks for all the great work you do on both math articles and professor related articles. Sorry for my behavior on Joy Lim Arthur-- Looking back, I dug in my heels where I should have better understood what you were saying. I'm rather ashamed of how I acted and would like to think its not characteristic of me. Everything you said makes complete sense in the stark light of Monday. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may (or may not) be correct, I have updated the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Constance_van_Eeden, We'll see what they say ! GrahamHardy (talk)

You were right ! GrahamHardy (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it happens. No problem double-checking, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to rollback Legobot at GA? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no? I hadn't even realized I did it. Must have been a mouse slip. Sorry about that, Legobot. Fortunately rollbacks there are completely ineffective — it just kept on doing it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Curve of constant width you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dave, i need your help with this one. Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Deviprasad Dwivedi is lying untouched without any comments/votes for the 6th straight day. Although i know that this is fairly common and we should remain patient, my query is that if i can do something to increase the traffic there. This is helpful considering that we are basically decreasing the workload of potential voters by taking the discussion to them. Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 17:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my reply in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mo Moulton is not interpreted harshly, I did not intend it that way.   // Timothy :: talk  08:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether you mean "harshly" as that I might think I was being insulted, or whether you mean that my opinion of you will be lowered by reading what you wrote. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was simple note expressing that my tone was not intended to be harsh, the kind most editors would reply to graciously, not with a backdoor insult. WP:CIVIL, "Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors can seem unnecessarily harsh, while simply trying to be forthright."   // Timothy :: talk  09:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

The article needs a down-to-earth way of explaining what the complication is in constructive mathematics. Citing the particular weak form of excluded middle (which is what was there until my recent edits) is mumbo jumbo to most people who might land on the page. The most WP:COMMON-ly understood of the many implications of LLPO is the halting problem. Another possibility is to add some words about real number in that context being an infinite-precision object, or giving the example of a real number whose base 2 expansion is any given sequence, so that deciding if it is zero functions as a halting solver. If in computational geometry "real number" means something else and this is a non-issue (though the examples in Mandelkern's article are simple enough to have complexity-theoretic implications of the same flavor) it seems to me the solution is to add that information rather than reduce clarity about the constructive issues. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's as hard a problem to compute as the halting problem, as you did, is flat-out incorrect, because that's a statement that is not qualified by assumptions of constructivity. Even in constructive mathematics, inputs with integer coordinates (a very standard assumption) are completely unproblematic. Your reference to the halting problem was unsourced and appears to be original research. And it appears to be making unwarranted assumptions about what an algorithm can do: even if we can't tell for some lines whether they are ordinary or not, one could easily run in parallel an algorithm that tests each line for being ordinary and returns the first one it finds. It would need a guarantee that its input is non-collinear (because that part really is hard to test constructively), but your statement was about algorithms for finding the ordinary line, not for testing whether one exists. And it might not be a function (the output of the algorithm would depend on the specification of the input and not just on its geometry) but so what? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The S-G theorem is about plane geometry (i.e., real or perhaps real-closed coordinate field), not the more restricted input models in computational geometry, so if any statements in the article are false or misleading for computational geometry then the restricted models should be explained as an alternative context, not as overturning statements that are true for real or constructive-real inputs.

The computational geometry form of Mandelkern's results is that if coordinates are given in (e.g., rational) interval arithmetic, then it can happen that for no line in the configuration is there a proof that it goes through only two points. The constructive real model is exactly that but with the ability to compute any coordinate to whatever precision is desired. Maybe the explanation in the article could be given in these terms without discussing LLPO at all. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that constructive mathematics should be viewed as the default method for understanding geometric algorithms, counter to everything done by every computational geometry researcher ever, is noted but dismissed as WP:FRINGE. And your continued failure to provide published sources for your assertions is also noted. As for "it can happen that for no line in the configuration is there a proof that it goes through only two points": yes, but only for inputs that are hard to distinguish from being totally collinear. Otherwise, the ordinary line exists (classically) and has nonzero distance from all other points, so one can simply continue computing until reaching a level of precision sufficient to distinguish that distance. So the difficulty of computing has nothing to do with actually finding ordinary lines, but is really only about determining collinearity of point sets, something that is only tangentially related to this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

constructive mathematics should be viewed as the default method for understanding geometric algorithms -- where did I say that? (You call it "(my) statement"!)

In a section of the article devoted to the status of the S-G theorem in constructive mathematics, cited solely to an article by Mark Mandelkern (apparently a constructivist from his articles) about a Brouwerian counterexample to the classical statement of S-G, then, uh, very obviously the context for whatever is explained there is... constructive mathematics, and its relation to classical mathematics and classical S-G. None of which are computational geometry (your area of expertise). Certainly I agree that adding material on S-G in computational geometry would be a big improvement to the article. But the edits in question and this here discussion thereof do not directly concern computational geometry. You are raising objections based on a computational geometry setting that is not currently in the article; to repeat, I think it would improve the article to add such material. But if the constructive business is to stay in the article, then how to present that is a matter of its own unconnected to comp.geom. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I agree that adding material on S-G in computational geometry would be a big improvement to the article: Uh, it's already there. You did read the article before making additions to it, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be excessively precise, as I think it was obvious (from words such as "section of the article devoted to the status of the S-G theorem in constructive mathematics", and all edits under discussion being in that section), I have been talking about the paragraph on constructive S-G, in the subsection on Axiomatics, in the section Proofs. That paragraph, section and subsection say nothing about the computational geometry of S-G, in particular the types of input for which an algorithm is or is not guaranteed to succeed -- an issue also not discussed anywhere else in the article, such as the sections on algorithmics. The addition of material on that issue, such as your remarks here about collinearity testing, to that section of the article would be useful but would probably belong in an additional paragraph on CG distinct from the context of constructive mathematics. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's true math isn't my strong suite, and I was trusting in the accuracy of the article to craft my description. Also, I did check the revision history to see how long it had been since anyone edited the lead, and I figured that surely any mistakes would have been corrected since November, so I decided to proceed with my faith in the accuracy to guide me in lieu of my knowledge of mathematics. I thought I did enough due diligence, but I guess not enough people are keeping up with these math articles.

Thanks for catching the error and fixing it, but boo on you for being so eager to point out personal weaker areas with demeaning public remarks such as "ridiculous short description added in equal ignorance". While that might not be untrue, it was an honest mistake not really deserving of humiliation, and it's just not kind.

That being said, you might look at another one I wasn't 100% sure about: Möbius_function I think it's actually ok since the lead doesn't appear to have been edited in a long time, and that is where I always get my material for descriptions, if I have knowledge about the article or not. Thanks again for your help. Huggums537 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks mostly accurate enough, although I think this is really just number theory without the combinatorics. However, too much of the editorialization ("important") has been carried over into the shortdesc, which really only needs the factual part (it's a multiplicative function, and its context is number theory). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I shortened the description to reduce the "editorialization". Huggums537 (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, I think I'm getting conflicting advice from different editors, where you have advised me in this edit summary to be less "inane", and Trovatore has advised in this edit summary that simply adding "Mathematical concept" is sufficient enough context for distinguishing that title from other titles that might pop up in search results with the same name. (This coincides with the goals of the short description project as well.)

David, you seem to posit here that it is not titles with similar names that need to be distinguished, but rather titles that have similar topics that need to be distinguished, and I have to tell you that the people over at Wikipedia talk:Short description have been insisting it is only the titles, but I think I partially agree with you here by saying it should be both the titles and the topics. I believe it would improve the descriptions to distinguish topics as well.

I will admit I have no idea what I was thinking when I introduced "Axiom" into the description, if I had it to do over again, I would simply make the Probability space description say, "Model of random process". However, that is from the perspective of a layman, and you two are the experts here.

I'm doing exceptionally well just to be able to edit on this site with my highest academic achievement being that I completed 8th grade Jr. high school, then did some freshman high school before going to get my GED. I have studied some college texts just for my own personal amusement, but no formal training. Huggums537 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your shortdesc for additive function failed to distinguish it from articles with similar titles, not just similar topics, including function and (more specific to number theory) multiplicative function and Partition function (number theory) among others. As for your education, I am certainly not one to require credentials — it impresses me when people without them reach the same level of accomplishment, because to me that shows that they were able to do it the hard way. But I think the Wittgenstein quote "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" may be relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of short descriptions is that they are mainly intended to give broad context to mobile users (to take a recent example, a mobile user who sees "probability space" in a list of search results shouldn't have to wonder if it might be space between Mars and Jupiter). I don't think we need to make distinctions much finer than that. Short descriptions are supposed to have a "soft limit" of 40 characters, and while it's fine to go over that when it's really necessary, I think we should try to hold the line on that whenever reasonably possible. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first thing shown to all readers of our articles, both mobile and non, after the title but before even the initial sentence of the article. As the first thing they see of a topic, it's likely the take-away message of the article, what they will remember the topic as being about. It's also used in mobile to list search results. As such it needs to be readable to a broad audience, short and to the point, and capable of telling searchers which of multiple similar results is the one they're looking for. Something vague but correct (like, "it's a mathematical concept" or "it's a Wikipedia article") isn't helpful, but neither is copying all of the technical detail from the start of the article. It's important that people writing short descriptions have a clear understanding of both the topic they're writing the description for, and of other topics that might appear with it in search results: so they can write something that accurately describes the topic and that distinguishes it from the others. That's why I think it's a mistake for editors to take on writing short descriptions of technical topics as a gnome-like task, something like minor grammar corrections that can be done en masse to thousands of articles just by quickly reading the first sentence and trying to summarize it (or punting and writing "concept in [category name]" when even summarizing a sentence is too much work). Sometimes, if that first sentence has already been written well, abbreviating it into a short description works. Often, it doesn't, and the editor writing the short description needs to be capable of telling the difference. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Web users don't see it at all, unless they enable it in CSS. --Trovatore (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly visible to me, and I don't recall doing anything special to enable it. But maybe I did and I just don't remember. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any case I agree that "Wikipedia article" is useless, but I think "mathematical concept" is fine for most math articles named after a kind of object. It isn't supposed to be a definition.

I don't object to more specific short descriptions as long as (1) they don't go over 40 chars and (2) they don't confuse math-naive readers, who mostly just need to know that it's a math article, which may not be obvious. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why 40, specifically? When I try the mobile search I get over 50 characters per shortdescription line and many are two lines. Also, (3) when math-savvy readers are trying to search for an article on mobile, all they see are the titles and shortdescs, so it needs to be informative to them as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

40 is the "soft limit". Unless that has been changed. I haven't really kept up with the shortdesc project. I think we specifically want them to stay on one line whenever possible. That's just for UX reasons.

I don't think short descriptions were ever really meant to cater to experts. Just not really what they're for. I'm pro-power-user myself, but I don't think we need to make every feature a power feature, and this one is a good example of one that shouldn't be, unless it can be done without making it less useful to non-experts. --Trovatore (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to make people searching for mathematics articles using mobile guess which article they want based only on titles and inane "article in mathematics" shortdescs, rather than even trying to make mobile search useful for the people who want to find those articles? Have you ever actually tried using mobile? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, I think Trovatore has only tried explaining how the guidelines at the short description project seem to have wanted us to do it so far, and I think I tend to agree with your arguments that the way they seem to want us to do it needs improvement so we can write more informative descriptions. However, the rebuttal argument I have seen at the project that is against us follows something along the lines that the more informative description is not needed to distinguish the titles because the titles are always together with the descriptions, and the titles already do the job of distinguishing themselves anyway, e.g. additive function, multiplicative function, and Partition function (number theory). While this may be true, I still think the informative descriptions are of more benefit to the reader, so it's a pointless truth to focus on in my opinion. Please note the descriptions do not show up on my mobile in the articles, just in the search results as they were intended to. [ I'm positive I had to enable them in my settings for my PC too since they don't show up in any of the level 1-3 vital articles that for sure have descriptions when I view incognito/private mode.] Also, I don't want to leave the wrong impression that I'm some uneducated buffoon who quit learning after high school, since I did continue on to acquire both formal and informal education or training for skillsets (trades) outside of the academic realm (university), and I can do these technical descriptions. I've done a bunch of them with relatively few errors considering how many I have completed, although I will admit a couple of the errors were rather large blunders, but I can be more careful with that. Huggums537 (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:David Eppstein. I am working on a page on Marilyn Burns, a prominent math educator who won the AWM Hay Award in 1997. There are already pages for Marilyn Burns and Marilyn Burns (politician). Is it kosher to create at page for Marilyn Burns (mathematics educator) or should I use Marilyn Burns (mathematician)? I am just learning how to input data on Wikidate. I know how to add "Statements" to sections that already exist. How to I add a section "Identifiers"? I added a VIAF ID to Marilyn Burns' page on Wikidata but that didn't activate a section on "Identifiers". Thanksfor your help. Mvitulli (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either title looks ok to me. The difficulty with Burns is making an article that doesn't look like an ad for her consulting business. As for the identifier section on Wikidata: just add statements listing the identifiers (VIAF, MGP, etc) and Wikidata will automatically sort them into a section for you. If you didn't see it when you added it, you probably just need to reload your browser window. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Eppstein I just published the page for Marilyn Burns (mathematics educator). See what you think. Even though I added identifiers to Wikidata first, nothing shows up in authority control. I tried dummy edits. I'm stumped. Mvitulli (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For authority control, usually you have to wait a few minutes and/or purge the page (Special:Purge). Dummy edits are just a placebo to help you wait. I'm seeing the authority control now. As for the new article, the WP:PEACOCK language like "highly regarded", the Amazon sales links for her books (both removed now), and promotional blurbs for her company sourced only to her company web site (all removed now) are exactly the sort of thing I was warning against in making the article look too promotional (and therefore likely to come under scrutiny by deletionists opposed to promotional material). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Eppstein, I have reduced the block duration of 211.116.85.179 to 2 years, especially as it is a hardblock. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was a block for a single article that the IP editor has been making disruptive edits to for months, as their only edits, and that they started right up again on as soon as their previous (full rather than article-specific) three-month block expired. If it were a full block, I would have chosen a year, but I think for an article-specific block on an article they have only ever been problematic on, indef is appropriate. I hope you have watchlisted the article and plan on being around 2 years later to handle the issue when they come back again. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The article Curve of constant width you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Curve of constant width for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ronald Graham you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ronald Graham you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ronald Graham for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for your hard work and kind behaviour to this community :) Akronowner (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:David Eppstein. I just create the Template:AWM Presidents modeled on Template:AMS Presidents. The template doesn't display the same way that Template:AMS Presidents does. Do you know how to fix this? Thanks for your help. Mvitulli (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The problem was the spaces in front of the stars. The stars need to be the very first character in each line of text. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Thanks. Mvitulli (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review Ricky Allman AFD one more time. I have added new information, such as museum exhibitions and Harvard Business Review citation. I feel these may change your mind.Webmaster862 (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edit in Grötzsch graph: If you start with the null graph (which I assume is the graph with no vertices) and repeatedly apply the Mycielskian, you get graphs with 1, 3, 7, 15, ... vertices. You never get the Grötzsch graph, which has 11 vertices. (Applying the Mycielskian gives twice the number of vertices plus one.) Or did I misunderstand something? /Pontus (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You start with a graph with one vertex and zero edges. Maybe we should say one-vertex graph instead of null graph to be less ambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But then the following graphs will have 3, 7, 15, 31, ... vertices. /Pontus (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the article on Mycielskian it says that the initial graph is the one-edge graph. /Pontus (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right. Mycielskian always has an odd number of vertices so to get two vertices you need the one-edge graph as a start. It's definitely incorrect to call this the null graph. I'll restore your edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Keep up the good work! /Pontus (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't get that. How you cite that he is non notable?? As a Sri Lankan and a native person, he is well adjudged in our country due to his leadership qualities and popularizing the international school system in Sri Lanka. I have added a hardcopy of his notability through a newspaper. So, my concern is "HE is notable" and valuble asset in our country. So help me to keep the article. If you need soft article references, I will send them soon to Wikipedia. There are many non notable things in Wikipedia, but never ever get deleted and never concerned by Admins. Thank You. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]