User talk:David Eppstein/2015d

Hi David, Thanks a lot for removing the Daily Mail cite from the following article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dinesh_Singh_(academic)&oldid=686452489 (Revision as of 05:28, 19 October 2015)

I was not aware that Daily Mail is not reliable source. After your edit, I did some research and completely agree with you reason and decision.

However, the DUTA ("DUTA is a teachers representative body of the teachers of Delhi University. The elections for its office bearers are conducted every two years.") has made allegations and representations about the authoritarian and megalomaniac administrative style of Dinesh Singh. Therefore, in support of the removed text, please find an alternative reliable source: I am quoting from the news report in Times of India.

"In a second resolution, demanding the dismissal of Singh, the GBM stated that it "condemns the DU VC for his insulting and defamatory remarks about DU teachers, in general, and the School of Open Learning in particular. In an unprecedented display of megalomania, Dinesh Singh has spared neither eminent educationists who have questioned the wisdom of the FYUP nor the parliament where several questions on this issue have been raised"."

^[1]

One more reliable source - Statesman:

^[2]

If you agree, can I put back the statement that you deleted and use this cite instead of Daily Mail.

Thank you, Annie 70.51.29.124 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That whole section is somewhat problematic, out of balance with the rest of the article. But I have no specific objection to those other sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

On 20 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hinke Osinga, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after mathematician Hinke Osinga studied invariant manifolds in her doctoral dissertation, she made a crochet model of one? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hinke Osinga. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Professor Eppstein, I wish to draw your attention to some vandalism on the François Viète page ^[1], where you seem to have made some substantial contributions. I don't believe I'm experienced enough to revert the changes correctly, and hope you are able to do so. My Other Head (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by My Other Head (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed — thanks for calling this to my attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you have shepherded this page before, and wanted to ask if I'm crazy or not. Back in 2010 an anon added explanatory comments, but used the word 'circle' instead of 'cycle'. That rather bothers me. Shouldn't those be 'cycle'?

When explanations confuse me, I start to worry the mental ECC is wearing out... Shenme (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think "cycle" would be better there. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A page whose deletion discussion you participated in was re-added and nominated for deletion again. See: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Franklin_(2nd_nomination) Barcaboy2 (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, MDPI was removed from Mr. Beall's list of "predatory publishers" (www.scholarlyoa.com/publishers/) after we submitted an appeal directly to him. We previously discussed about moving the subject to the main body of the article. Do you still believe that the lead of the article needs to refer to MDPI as "predatory"? Regards, Alistair 46.140.24.118 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reuleaux triangle 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 Spinningspark -- Spinningspark (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Reuleaux triangle page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello David Eppstein, I asked a question about your recent edits on the Applied Mathematics talk page. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Applied_mathematics#Further_reading_section_-please_explain_undo_Comment

Thank you, --CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment for the introduction. I believe I fixed it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractalgrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by LunaLinus (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is very difficult to create the new articles as experienced editors are merging, so I am going to keep IEEE conferences in main page, as parent article is available. It may not be informative to scientific /academic community. No Parent article available to Kenes Group, I request you to keep this new article, let me improve sources on timely basis. Dentking07 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for all of your contributions!  :) I noticed that one of them had been deleted, which I think is unjustifiable. I just reverted a similar deletion, explaining why. Your point of view on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

David, you may be amused by this properly cited bit of wild speculation. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leslie Lee (playwright), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Wright. 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) 10:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, Thank you for your nice addition to Bill Casselman (mathematician). I have often noticed such edits by you and consider you the prince of the WikiGnomes. You really ought to consider adding the WikiGnome topicon to your home page: {{WikiGnome topicon}. On another topic, I spent some time a while back (as Foobarnix) cleaning up all the Sporadic group articles such as Mathieu group M11 and so on – and also worked on the then lame Template:Group theory sidebar. (Editor GodMadeTheIntegers then did a fantastic job of cleaning it up. Why doesn't that guy get a home page so we can thank him?) Have you looked at any of those pages? It seems like your talents would be a great fit. IAC thanks for all your fine work.--Toploftical (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please also revdel this edit, by the same IP who made the edit you revdel'ed a short time ago. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 02:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done — thanks for pointing this out. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I see you like editing in geometry and biographies. Would you like to help me to make an article on Jan Koenderink? I have made an initial stub, but I don't know very well how to improve it. I liked his book Solid Shape so much that I decided to try to create an article about him. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidSings (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't find more sources... Maybe it was a bad idea to start an article when there are so few references out there. He is clearly notable but it's also clear that there are so few sources from which to build the article. :/ Sorry for asking help in this impossible case. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimidSings (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

He clearly passes WP:PROF. I cleaned up the article a bit today and added a couple more references. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add a statement to Hamiltonian path about the smallest cubic graph that doesn't have a Hamiltonian path (not cycle). I thought this was one of the Zamfirescu graphs with 88 vertices described at but just before I added the statement I realized that paper refers only to planar cubic graphs that are also 3-connected. Has anyone found the smallest simple cubic graph with no Hamiltonian path? I find that the Tutte graph does have a Hamiltonian path (just not a Hamiltonian cycle), and so do snarks like Petersen and other small cases. I recalled and found your family of cubic graphs with polylog longest paths at . Does that family yield the smallest? I couldn't find much in the literature for "untraceable graph" and "nontraceable graph" -- looks like the lack of Hamiltonian paths is not as well-researched as the lack of Hamiltonian cycles. -- 174.152.78.22 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Even for planar graphs, the answer is much smaller than 88; see the figure. I suspect this may be the smallest one (for cubic graphs, unconstrained by connectivity or planarity) but don't have a reference at hand. A similar construction with two lobes instead of three gives an even smaller cubic graph with no Hamiltonian cycle. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Has this work been published by you or anyone else? I would like to cite it if I add it to the article if you don't consider it to be OR. -- 174.152.78.22 (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not published that I know of. I tried a quick Google scholar search but didn't find anything relevant. As you say, there is much more work on Hamiltonian cycles than paths. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, apart of the fact that it would be much more apprechiated a nicer way of describe other people work, can we speak about the erasing of our contribution to the section "in Nature". The work of the astrophysicist Nikolai Kozyrev has been studied, analyzed and experimented for half of a century and it's continuing to be analyzed, by mathematicians, physicists and natural scientists. If there is the need to offer more proof and more references we will, but let's speak about it formally and civilly. There is a reason why many people are researching on this topics and eventhough many of the results are pseudoscientific conquers for a mediatic wave of more misteries then how we had starting, others, like Kozyrev's, Santilli's, Illert's and other works, like those of the italian psysicists Michele Natteri and Francesco di Noto, from the Departments of Earth Sciences and from the Department of Mathematics and Application "R. Cacciopoli" of the University of Napoli, researching on the presence of the Fibonacci number in the String Theory, the conseguences and the physical implications, that you can see also here from other studies: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-strangest-numbers-in-string-theory/

if Yuo would like to speak with us, or receive more References, we would be extremely delighted. Here we are speaking about Divulgation, and Public Knowledge, Journalism and Ethic of Progress, scientifically speaking and socially speaking. Thank you vesprolatuna 01:13 (UTC)

I stand by my edit summary, but given the extra space available here I would like to add that two of references in question are in International Journal of Physics and Astronomy published by Recent Science, listed as a predatory open access publisher by Beall's list, and in Hadronic Journal, the personal journal of notable fringe scientist Ruggero Santilli. Neither can be accepted as a reliable source here and their presence in this material (together with the shout-out to Santilli himself) makes it less credible, not more. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For a helpfully thorough GA-review of Trevor Kincaid. LavaBaron (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Would this be a better reference? Thanks!http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jmp/56/11/10.1063/1.4930800 User:Correogsk (talk

Yes, but the question should really be: what coverage of this topic do you think should be added beyond what is already there at the end of the "derivation" section, which already uses this reference? Your new text didn't add much actual information to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, David. Well,I'm not a mathematician, but it seems to me that the relevance of this discovery is the fact that it's the first time Wallis product is found outside/beyond the field of mathematics themselves. Wait for your view. Thanks! Correogsk or Gustavo (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what is added in your comment beyond what was already in the article on the exact same topic? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, my! I hadn't seen the issue about the hydrogen atom was already covered, sorry and thanks a lot, David! :) A Mexican hug!

Aplique su conocimiento de topología conjuntista; definitivamente, entre un polígono simple y la circunferencia se puede establecer un homeomorfismo; y para que se distraiga vaya efectuando ${\displaystyle 1^{\sqrt {7}}}$ — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2y3 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My Spanish isn't good enough to read this sort of technical writing without the assistance of Google translate. But the issue with your edits to Simple polygon wasn't their correctness; it was that they were written in Spanglish rather than English. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, the reason for this is in the section "Computational complexity": the problem is whether a graph, given without geometry, can be represented as a unit disk graph. It is also present the Category:NP-complete problems, don't you see? --Horcrux92 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that the category Category:Computational problems in graph theory should be reserved for articles that have a computational problem as their main topic (such as clique problem) rather than ones on something else that happen to mention complexity along the way. Everythiing (or at least everything in discrete mathematics) has an associated complexity; listing them all in the category would be too indiscriminate. And the fact that this one happens to be NP-complete doesn't make it any more or any less of a computational problem than something else with a polynomial time algorithm. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted my edit that described the art at Padah-Lin as 'Holocene'. The previous description of 'mesolithic and neolithic' is taken from reports of the site that are now out-dated. It is no longer accurate because 'mesolithic' is not a chronological period in Southeast Asian prehistory. It has not appeared in any scholarly literature of Southeast Asian archaeology for 30 years and has no definition as a culture-history phase in this region (I read, teach and write this literature). 'Mesolithic' is only meaningful in Europe and the Levant. On the other hand, 'Holocene' is a current and widely used term that refers to a well-defined period all around the world from 11,700 years before the year 2000 AD, up to the present (and so not 'uninformative', as you claim). The Holocene period includes the 'neolithic' period of Southeast Asia, but since the neolithic is not well defined for Myanmar, is it not a good choice to specify a time period. There is no direct evidence for the age of the art at Padah-Lin, so any claim about the age must be vague to properly communicate the lack of certainty about the age estimate. The terms 'mesolithic and neolithic' are almost meaningless for indicating a time period in this region (at best confusing), and their usage here reflects an awareness of the scholarly literature that is at least 30 years out of date. This is forgivable for the literature that was published in the 1960s, and scholars in Myanmar who have very limited access to the internet. But for everyone else, it's not a well-informed choice, so I hope we can agree to move on from 'mesolithic and neolithic' and use 'probably Holocene' instead. What do you think? Comtebenoit (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that if you want to use a new date you should use a new source that states that date rather than changing the date but leaving the source of the sentence unchanged. I think holocene should not be capitalized. I also think "these artifacts date from the holocene" is almost completely uninformative because it's true for almost all human artifacts. It would be better to give an approximate range of millennia, because the holocene extends until today and presumably we know that the cave artifacts are older than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the primary sources - I mean the report by the excavators. The art is not dated at all, and the word 'mesolithic' is not used to describe the art. To use the word 'Holocene' is not adding a new date, it's using the current technical vocabulary for the same dates. Using current technical terms reduces confusion and ambiguity. Readers of the scientific literature will know that Holocene is properly styled with a capital H because it's a proper noun (you can also see this in the wiki article). 'Holocene' spans almost exactly the periods indicated by the seven radiocarbon dates for this site. So it's an accurate and unproblematic label to describe the period of human activity at this site. To the non-archaeologist, it might seem that 'almost all human artifacts' come from the Holocene. However, there is also the 'Pleistocene', which spans 10k years BP to about 2 million years BP, and there are lot of artefacts in the world from that period also. There is also upper, middle and lower Holocene and Pleistocene, which are routinely used in the scientific literature to indicate greater chronological resolution. In this case, we don't have any greater resolution than 1750 years BP to 13,400 years BP (as reported in the publication by the excavators), so 'Holocene' is quite appropriate, or 'Upper Pleistocene and Holocene' would also be ok. I've also added a new reference for the dates, and some photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comtebenoit (talk • contribs) 04:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm happier seeing it spelled out as 1750 years BP to 13,400 years BP (or whatever other dating system you want to use): it's more precise (because it rules out more recent times) and also less WP:TECHNICAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear David, we do not understand what it needs to be done to consider a scientist a scientist, if, apart of the mathematical skills and the commercial and the practical experience, he've been awarded by so many prizes and recognitions. On his website there are pictures that demonstrate the recieving moments of the prizes. But we know this is kind of useless question with you. Anyway, we found the official source ofr the mediterranean prize, so we will add it.

Concerning Dr Leong Ying. There are not only pictures of them, but you can clearly see from the main page of Dr Ying theory of Twin Universe that his idea are completely in agrees with Dr Santilli's. Apart of this, there sis a video documentare (Reinassance of Cosmology) where Dr Ying speaks about Dr Santilli and in Santilli's website there are many pictures of the entire Princeton Gamma-Tech Instruments team, leaded by Dr Leong Ying, working with Dr. Santilli. At this point we conclude that it is absolutley not fair that more references than these have been asked. We ask that our contribute is manteined. If not, we will write personally to Dr YIng, maybe a direct declaration will be enough as a clear reference.

Thanks

[Vespro Latuna] 16 December 2015 01:27 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespro Latuna (talk • contribs)

Hi David,

I note that you reverted my edit of the Enoch biography page. A more correct history of Enoch's supposed proof would include the crucial role of BBC world service, where a journalist had read that Enoch had been awarded the prize. In turn the BBC (being a trusted source) was copied uncritically by other newspapers. Later the BBC, realizing their mistake, added a header in parentheses saying that the story was based on the assumption that the prize had been awarded.

The websites and blog calling the proof fake, a hoax, or plagiarized (or a Nigerian scam) are not reliable sources of anything. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia but I think there are very strict criteria about biographies of living people, and to say that a source says that someone is a hoaxer is a very serious thing to do. It is just not notable that some bloggers think that the proof is a hoax or is plagiarized, and it is a serious thing to commit to print.

It is clear that there is no proof; the discussion on the Riemann hypothesis talk page is all very responsible and clear about it. The fact that Enoch's university (or supposed university) has no information about his proof, or even about his existence, suggests so. Someone on the talk page (I do not know who) just said clearly that the issue is that although Enoch said that he has a proof, he has not posted one anywhere. This biography article could do the same. Otherwise it ought to, I think, be deleted.

Just on a basis of fairness, also, it is wrong for Wikipedia to repeat accusations of fraud etc which have not been established by any reliable source (and may well be false, there is a difference between being over-confident in your work and being a fraud, and one can interpret Ringos' public statements as trying to be responsible and admit that she may have mistakenly told Enoch in her conference that she understands his proof, and he may have misundersstood the fact that she does not represent the mathematical establishment).

Since you've taken the step of reverting my edit, how about changing the article to make it less like an accussation of intentional fraud on the part of Enoch.Createangelos (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know if you've seen Nigerian journalists' responses, but they think that the problem is that jealous western scholars are trying to block a valid proof, and that Enoch is a hero involved in a political battle. Such a notion could be really damaging to scholarship in general -- to the way that beginning scholars in China, India, Africa understand how scholarship is done, and also, for instance, the relative trustworthiness of business and science articles versus mathematics and philosophy articles.

In other words, this biography (which gives credibility to bloggers who caricature what good scholarship can be like) gives fuel to those who see scholarship as a power game, rather than as a game of trust or a search for meaningful belief.Createangelos (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. If you read a few of Enoch's earlier articles, they are bad but not terrible. They involve very complicated rewritings of the zeta function by trigonometric functions like sin and cosine, and refer to other articles where such equations are established.Createangelos (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My preferred solution would be to just delete the article. There's not much to say besides "he doesn't have a proof, and the media blew it up". See my earlier prod. But the reason for my revert was that your version could easily be read as implying that he really does have a proof that happens not to be public yet. I don't think that's accurate and I don't think we should be implying it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm we can recommend it for deletion, via the deletion log. Have you done that before, i.e. know how to do it?Createangelos (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I have started a deletion discussion — see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opeyemi Enoch. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, I just did a GA review for the Bach cantata linked above. I think that it's close to passing subject to the revisions I listed in Talk:Du Friedefürst, Herr Jesu Christ, BWV 116/GA1, but it's been a long time since I did a GA review (2007?) so I'd love a second opinion on whether my assessment according to the criteria is likely to stand, particularly since there are two other similar cantatas by the same author that I would then continue to review. Thank you! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Binary logarithm 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 Jfhutson -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you were mistaken with this revert. I said "exactly two points", which means two and only two points. And regardless of whether you accept that or not, it's better than the clumsy brain twisted version that you reverted back to. Furthermore, why a revert? Why not correct the error you saw instead of bulldozing my hard work? Zephalis (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

My objection was to the part where you got rid of the restriction that the four points have no three on a line. That part was important. Your phrasing "where only two no three of which pass through the same point" is also very clumsy. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"where only two no three of which pass through the same point" was a typo, of which could've been easily fixed. There were actually traces of two other versions of the statements that I overlooked because I was quite tired by time I finished.

As for what you say about the "four points hav[ing] no three [points] on a line", I stated that it had "exactly two" points, which covers that there isn't three points. I already said this in my first statement to you as well.

So again, I ask you, why don't you just correct it and not do a revert? I took the time to rephrase it because it's difficult to make sense of the original and I had to go at it piece by piece to get the idea into my head. Even knowing what it is now, the original phrasing is still very difficult to comprehend. I know it's difficult to phrase in a simple, but complete way because it took me a couple hours to phrase it the way I had it, especially since I was also trying to mirror the two definitions so they could be better understood as a whole. --Zephalis (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Prof. Eppstein. What is the problem with the Appendix where I wanted to share my new elementary research results about the subject ? How do you like these ideas ? Ok now I understood why it was deleted but it does not change the beauty of this result does it ? Happy New Year: White Tiger (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR regarding original research and Wikipedia. There are lots of places on the web to share new research results; Wikipedia isn't one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)