User talk:BagLuke

Hello, BagLuke!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, ButlerBlog (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

One important thing to point out is that what you've been trying to add at Chick tracts is based on primary sources and is essentially original research, which we don't do here. You need to use what is stated in secondary sources. Please see the difference between primary and secondary sources. That may help you understand why your edit has been reverted. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the previous paragraph:

Some tracts, like Let's Fly Away and The Throw Away Kid, portray the subject of child abuse. The earliest on the subject is Somebody Loves Me, which focused on a young boy being bludgeoned to death by a drunken guardian after not getting enough to pay on the rent.

This cites only primary sources, but I assume the difference is partly that I am wording things in a way that would make a secondary source necessary? Any way to go about this? Sorry, I am newer to this stuff. BagLuke (talk) 07:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Please verify your addition in the edit Special:Diff/1270915613 – it seems unjustified to me. The article explicitly says: 'The problem was finally solved in 1993 by Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai (...)' in a middle pragraph of the Borsuk's conjecture § Problem section, so it seems a bit suspicious to mark it as unsolved.

Possibly you meant some other problem, related to the original Borsuk's question (like a precise formula for a number of necessary subsets in partitioning as a function of the space dimension)? --CiaPan (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this understandably comes across as strange, but read the beginning of the paragraph after that one: "Their result was improved in 2003", and the paragraph after, "In 2013, Andriy V. Bondarenko had shown that Borsuk's conjecture is false for all n ≥ 65. Shortly after, Thomas Jenrich derived a 64-dimensional counterexample from Bondarenko's construction, giving the best bound up to now." I'm not sure why the paragraph you mentioned says "the problem was finally solved", because it isn't fully solved; this problem has been on the page List of unsolved problems in mathematics for a long time now, and I was simply adding a card on this page to link back to it. BagLuke (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can see how the word improvement can be a bit misleading in this context. But I understand it as finding an example in a lower-dimension space: Hinrichs and Richter have found their example in 298–dimensional space, whilst Kahn and Kalai had to explore a space of 1325 dimensions. Anyway, K&K gave a definite answer to the Borsuk's question: "no, not every n–dimensional set can be partitioned into n+1 subsets of smaller diameters," thus solving the problem.

PS. Please use the {{Reply to}} template (or any of its redirects, like {{re}} or {{ping}}) to notify users to whom you answer. Not everybody watches the pages where they wrote something, so notifying them about a reply or comment that may interest them is considered an act of courtesy. (This is not necessary if you reply to someone at that user's talk page, like I did it now, replying to you at your talk page, because the notification is then generated automatically.) --CiaPan (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Distance (graph theory), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connected components. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks bot :) BagLuke (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Arrangement of pseudolines. Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! BagLuke (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The illustration you added to Tensor Field is misplaced and interferes with the Definition section. Take a look. Jfdavis (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You're right, does this change look better? BagLuke (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Every finite graph is a fragment of the Rado graph. Every finite triangle-free graph is a fragment of the Henson graph. So drawing a graph, and calling it a fragment of the Rado graph or of the Henson graph, conveys nothing meaningful. You need to specify how the graph is ordered and how it is adjacent for that ordering. That is why the illustration in the Rado graph article uses and describes the binary numbering scheme and BIT predicate adjacency test. But as my edit summary should have already made clear, that numbering scheme does not work for the Henson graph construction. You need to specify very carefully another numbering scheme that does work (not implicitly the way the article does, but explicitly), and source that specification to a mathematics publication, before you can draw the graph using that specification. Maybe I'll give you more of a hint: something like the numbering system in Fig.1 of doi:10.7155/jgaa.00625 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link) (not exactly that system, but something similar where each layer has one vertex for every subset of vertices in all previous layers) does work. But that reference only talks about finite graphs. You'd need to find a different reference that discusses similar schemes in the context of infinite graphs.

Also, please pay significantly more attention to the many many comments above warning you not to add original research to Wikipedia. The hint I gave you above is original research. It should not be used as the basis of Wikipedia content. You can use it to help you find references on which to base the content you add. But far too many of your additions have been based on your partial understanding of the topics you are editing and not on what published sources say about those topics, and this pattern of editing has been repeatedly leading you astray and causing the encyclopedia to become worse. If you cannot stop making the encyclopedia worse on your own, it is likely that others will stop you. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I had misunderstood the extension property of the Rado graph, and thought that as a result, any ordering would cause this to be true. The purpose of the illustration was to show the process of removing the last vertex in a clique of an ordered sequence of vertices, but yes, that doesn't work when it's based on the assumption that any ordering is valid for this case. I'll sometimes misunderstand stuff like that because I'm not a formal mathematician, I just want visuals in articles that could use them, so being corrected is something I assume will happen going in. I can then hopefully make a correct image based on this, and then I can illuminate the thing that confused me as a layman so that other laymen can understand it better. Thanks! BagLuke (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The standard numbering for a cube graph is the one given in File:Numbered 3-cube on side.svg where every pair of adjacent vertices differs by changing a single bit in their binary representations. Was there a reason you used a different numbering for File:Graph isomorphisms.svg? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Nope, it was arbitrary. That is interesting though, so I'll go ahead and change it to that numbering scheme. Thanks! BagLuke (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello BagLuke! Your additions to Arrangement of pseudolines have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maximum common edge subgraph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Local search.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tutte path, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Connectivity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I wanted to give some additional color to the reason I undid a number of additions you made to Chick tract, especially in light of the edit summary here. The issue with much of this is that it is entirely cited by primary sources. Primary sources are OK to a point, but the article should not rely on them. What you added is not egregiously over the line, but it is just enough over the line. The statement Other tracts that aren't primarily focused on Catholicism occasionally include Catholics as antagonistic characters. For example... indicates that you are providing original research. How so? Your statement followed by "for example" indicates you are injecting interpretation and then using a primary source to support it. That's fine if you're writing a research paper or general article on the topic, but encyclopedic copy is a different writing style than that and it has to rely on secondary sources. It can be a little difficult to adjust for people who are more familiar with the former style than the latter. I hope that gives some clarity as to "why" on these changes. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you for the clarification. BagLuke (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of Randić's index by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Randić index. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Christian75 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi BagLuke. Thank you for your work on Certified dominating set. Another editor, Lp0 on fire, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for writing this. It could probably do with some more sources, and it might be helpful to simplify it a bit, for example by adding a brief gloss of dominating set rather than requiring users to click the wikilink. If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading MOS:MATH.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lp0 on fire}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

lp0 on fire () 09:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Tweety's High-Flying Adventure (video game), please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. linking to a pirated emulated version of the game is inappropriate and a copyright issue Waxworker (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi BagLuke. Thank you for your work on Imbalance conjecture. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for this very interesting graph theory article. The fact that this has been translated into Russian (this edit), verbatim, and that has remained unchanged, is a mark of its quality. I had only a minor set of formatting changes to make.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BagLuke. Thank you for your work on Stepwise irregular graph. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for this article on a concept that seems to have been picked up by a number of groups, helping to establish notability. Appropriately structured, and as with ano0ther of your articles, translated into Russian.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BagLuke. Thank you for your work on Join (graph theory). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

thanks for another graph theory article. A number of improvements have been made since the page was created, and its worth reviewing the nature of these as you go to build more pages.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BagLuke. Thank you for your work on Asteroidal triple-free graph. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for another graphy theory article; looks fine to me! I just moved the 'see also' section, which should come before the references: WP:MOS

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi BagLuke. Thank you for your work on Roman dominating set. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for this graph theory page for a particular dominating set that has been discussed by a variety of different sources as its primary topics; those sources are from a range of different authors over time, showing sustained covered. Keep an eye on MOS:BOLD, which recommends using bold only very sparingly; there's a bit of over-use here.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)