User talk:David Eppstein/2021d

The article Tardos function contains the following statement:

Later, the same function was used to provide a counterexample to a purported proof of P ≠ NP by Norbert Blum.^[1]

---

As I interpret the cited source, the Tardos function was not specifically used to refute Blum's claim of having proved that Clique ∉ P; moreover, the refutation is not a disproof by counterexample; it merely pokes a hole in the argument.  --Lambiam 05:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If you mean, the counterexample doesn't prove that Clique is in P, and because it doesn't prove that, it doesn't refute the claim: of course not. We still don't know whether the clique problem is in P or not; that's equivalent to whether P=NP or not. The Tardos function is a counterexample to the proof, not the claim. It disproves a different claim of Blum made within his supposed proof, that monotone functions with no subexponential circuits cannot be in P. It provides a counterexample, a monotone function with no subexponential circuits that is in P. Because Blum's proof depends on this false claim, the proof is invalidated. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a friend and colleague of Phyllis Zagano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Zagano and she has asked me to watch her page. She requested that the following changes be made to her page:

In 2016, Pope Francis appointed Zagano to the Papal Study Commission on theWomen's Diaconate.[10] [11] The Commission's first meeting was held November 25–26, 2016. [12] Its report was provided to Pope Francis in July 2018[13][14]

In May 2019,Francis gave what he termed "a portion" of the report to the president of theInternational Union of Superiors General (UISG), saying they could "do with it what theywanted," and that he had more sections they could request.

While Francis indicated that individual study continued, he did not indicate then whether the Study Commission remains active as a body.[13] At the final assembly of the 2019 Amazon Synod,Francis indicated he would, at the synod's request, recall the commission, adding two or three members. In January 2020, the president of the UISG said they received the history section of the report.

On April 8, 2020, Francis named an entirely new commission, which first met during the week of September 13, 2021.

https://www.ncronline.org/preview/uisg-president-says-group-considering-publishing-women-deacons-report

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-04/pope-commission-women-deacons.html

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-declines-answer-amazon-synods-requests-married-priests-women-ministers

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/14417/women-deacons-commission-to-hold-first-meeting

I made a small change to her last publication also per her request.

Janice Leah Poss (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oy vey. --JBL (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

In Latin please. EEng 23:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it's untranslatable. --JBL (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Janicelp: You and Zagano presumably found my user talk page through the fact that I had protected the page so that only established Wikipedia editors could edit it, roughly two years ago. It is unlikely to have escaped your attention that the reason the article needed that level of protection was "Long-term autobiographical and promotional editing". So you might try considering more deeply the autobiographical and promotional nature of the edits you are requesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

David, Thanks for protecting her page. Phyllis has had certain folks go in and change info on her page that is not correct, or, perhaps need updating as she is still working and her own webpage is a work in progress. I have explained some of how Wikipedia works to her. Yes, much of the info here is autobiographical, but primarily because she is a leader in the movement to instate women as deacons in the Catholic Church because of its biased history and lack of leadership roles for women. This has been her lifelong project, the entire movement is growing and has grown over the years. I am a theologian with an investment in women's leadrship and agency in religion. Phyllis is one of the few women who has worked directly with the Vatican and Francis on the issues of women and working toward women's visibility, increased offical leadership and rights as 50% of the Church's membership. Autobiographical, sure, but it's also biographical--perhaps this is where perhaps the actual writing above then might be changed to be less auto-promotional-right? I am also part of the 1000 Women in Red(Religion) project since the beginning and am a founding member of the group and so my investment in her page is manifold for me and my colleagues on this project. Here is our meet up page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_1000_Women_in_Religion. Thanks--your input is most valuable. I don't get a chance to do much editing as I am finishing a Ph.D. and have many other wrting projects, but I did promise her that I would watch her page and grateful that you are doing so. Janice Leah Poss (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your many contributions David! Timothy Sawe (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

SPI is too backlogged for me to bother them with posting this there, but hopefully you are not: the latest IP has self-identified (see the github link). --JBL (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to make edits to improve the usefulness of the glossary of graph theory Wikipedia page, but you have simply been reversing them, ie rather than taking on board my efforts which you appear to concede do have some merit. Is there some other approach that can be taken here in order to move forward positively? PaulBratch (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all, you could try not adding content about unrelated topics like group theory to a glossary of graph theory. Second of all, you could try reading and understanding the edit summary I left when reversing your bad edit, and understanding why it was a bad edit, rather than kicking and fussing because your bad edit was reversed. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Shame. I'd hoped you would have had a more constructive attitude. PaulBratch (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try explaining, in simple terms, why you think that orbit is a topic in graph theory. Where are the vertices? Where are the edges? Where is the graph? Please note that despite having the same length and the same first two letters, "graph" and "group" are very different words from each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try explaining why you are being so condescending PaulBratch (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't speak for David Eppstein, but my guess is that it is because you made a bad edit (adding the definition of orbit to the glossary of graph theory), were properly reverted, complained about it, and haven't yet acknowledged that it was a bad edit and reverting it was the correct response. --JBL (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but also, I was not so much trying to be condescending, as genuinely wondering if you were dyslexic and unable to recognize the difference between the words "group" and "graph", because otherwise I was having difficulty understanding why you were so obstinate about the bad edit, and I was trying to be sensitive in case that were true. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

While I’d acknowledge the definition of Orbit would be better placed in the glossary on Groups, that it didn’t already appear there either was what motivated me to try to help others like me who are just embarking (2 weeks ago) on a study of Graph theory including it’s close relationship to Group theory. I’d similarly tried to help others by refining the definition of Diameter in the Graph theory glossary, as I’d also found it ambiguous as previously set out. That both changes were reversed then condemned as “bad edits” using language that would be clearly seen as condescending by any reasonable person is as unnecessary as it is depressing. I’d have expected an educator to be at least supportive even if frustrated at the imperfect efforts of someone trying to help the world. But what we appear to have is an educator condemning people from their ivory tower, then constructing lame excuses about potential dyslexia in an attempt to explain away their attitude. PaulBratch (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently you also need to read WP:AGF, because clearly you are choosing to believe the worst of others rather than what they actually say. Wikipedia has requirements for treating other editors respectfully that you are violating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary I’m not choosing to believe the worst in others, rather I’m trying to help the project, indeed on the topic of my 2 changes that you reversed my original appeal to you was asking for an approach for moving forward positively, which is still my hope. PaulBratch (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square-difference-free set 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The article Square-difference-free set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Square-difference-free set 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Your perspective may be useful here, particularly as I’m citing your bio as an example.Montanabw^(talk) 03:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you please extend your standpoint that domain of applicability for n-ball volume and surface formulas are only natural numbers? Guswen (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Volume_of_an_n-ball) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding my edit summary. The domain of things that are on-topic for Volume of an n-ball is volumes of balls, and balls have integer dimensions. The formulas may be applicable for other uses with other arguments; for all I know you can plug in a quaternion or matrix or number in a finite field to these formulas, with enough care, but that's not what the article is about so it would be off-topic to do so there. Incidentally, you should be more careful about your two accounts Guswen and Gus~plwiki which both edited the same article in quick succession. See WP:MULTIPLE, which suggests how to identify legitimate multiple accounts, and in general try to avoid creating the appearance of tag-teaming with those accounts. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a mistake: I have 2 accounts (for PL wiki and for EN wiki), while only one would perhaps be sufficient. But I don't know how to integrate them.

Now, if balls have integer dimensions, as you note, this includes negative dimensions as well, doesn't it? Guswen (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Balls have non-negative integer dimensions. Also, see the intructions about "Special:MergeAccount" at the top of Meta:Help:Unified login. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll get through it ("Special:MergeAccount").

But who precisely said/proved that Balls have non-negative integer dimensions? Guswen (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have some definition of balls in mind for which this is not obviously and immediately true? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do. A point (called a center) and a radius or diameter (can be in denominator and raised to some power).

I question the notion of space for some time (I also question the notion of time), you know that obviously? Guswen (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that without providing a clear specification of the space and its distance function, you can have a clear definition of a ball? And why are you avoiding the obvious choice of a real vector space with Euclidean distance as the space? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need a clear specification of the space? Drop that mate.

OK. Here's my definition.

The Space: a set of labelled points (0-dimensional elements) that can be considered in terms of coordinates, i.e. the minimum number of independent (orthogonal) parameters required to assign a point to the space. This implies that the number of coordinates is an integer. If a given set of points forms a space there is always a bijective mapping between a point label and a tuple of its coordinates.

I'm still pondering on negative dimensions. The definition of a signed signed-dimension ${\displaystyle n}$ of a set, as a length exponent at which that set can be measured is appealing to me. It is clear that infinitely long lines, etc. can't be measured, only counted. Guswen (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It's distance function could be Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric for example (?).

I am avoiding this obvious choices because I don't consider them obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Guswen (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that exotic spaces in which the distance is not even a metric have a valid notion of volume at all? And why do you think this is on-topic for an article about the volumes of Euclidean balls? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what do you mean by a valid notion of volume. As I read: Volume is the quantity of three-dimensional space enclosed by a closed surface.

Having said that I rest my case. This article is indeed about the volumes of Euclidean balls, as stated in the onset. But then its title should be changed from Volume of an n-ball to Volume of a Euclidean n-ball not to confuse the reader. Guswen (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider helping me in my cause? I'm in a position to appropriately reward you. Guswen (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that...a clumsy attempt to bribe me? Or what. Anyway, no. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope. It's an honest, frank cry for your help (a time of which can be rewarded). Your help is possible, as long as you're not German, in which case it might be problematic due to some language perception difficulties. Guswen (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

German is not among my nationalities, nor among my Sprachen. I'm not sure I want to know: What's wrong with Germans? But anyway, still no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with Germans. I simply find German language slightly unfit to quantum theory. But that's obviously only my personal opinion that may eventually turn out to be wrong. Guswen (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point about the topic being overbroad, but I guess I was more interested in your thoughts about moving toward a CIR-based (or whatever) topic ban for one or more people given WT:Article_size#Clarification_needed_for_"article_splitting_activists", and before that WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1026#Cban_against_implementing_article_splits_for_Onetwothreeip. EEng 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's only 11pm here. I don't usually sleep until past midnight. Anyway, going after individual editors on this sort of thing is like whack-a-mole. Someone else with the same bee in their bonnet is sure to come along. What's needed is much more prominent guidance at WP:SPINOUT that this should only be done to well-established articles when there is both a strong consensus and adequate subject expertise to make a sensible subdivision. WP:HASTE is too wishy-washy about how maybe you might think for five seconds before breaking out the chainsaw.—David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You know what? You're 100% right, though the behavior of certain editors can be used as evidence for the need for such a change. Pinged you to where I quoted your post above. EEng 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that at (for example) Phineas Gage the presence of {Use mdy dates} -- which I vaguely understood until now to just be informational, not something that actually does anything -- now causes access dates in citation templates to be converted into MDY, even if they were originally in YDMYMD. I think you know where I'm going with this. Before I raised a stink, any thoughts? EEng 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The automatic date conversion in the citation templates is generally useful and not particularly new. If you want numeric access dates (what I assume you mean by YDM), you need to specify it in the use-dates template: {{Use mdy dates|cs1-dates=ly|date=October 2021}}. I'm not sure what the cs1-dates=ly syntax (with an ell, not a vertical bar or 1 or capital I) is intended to convey to human readers of the source code of the article, but to the citation template software it means: use long dates for publication dates and short numeric year-first dates for access-dates and archive-dates. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I meant YMD (now corrected above). Interesting. Agree the reformatting's useful in general, but the issue with the access/archive dates hadn't occurred to me until now. It appears I -- even I! -- added {Use MDY dates}, in response to someone's attempt to behaviour-ize the article, and never noticed the effect on the access dates. I've added the mysterious syntax you mentioned and it works beautifully. God is in his heaven and all is again right with the world. EEng 06:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Differentiation of cells

Crank cell

And so the following is I guess obligatory:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Darylprasad & Platonic solids. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I had been wondering which of Daryl & Gus (above) would attract drama-board attention first; now I know. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thus an example of implicit differentiation. EEng 18:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You have surely reverted a correct edit here. I'm not comfortable reverting you on a mathematical issue so I won't do that, but base (exponentiation) does not seem to be the correct link for a counting base whereas radix does. SpinningSpark 06:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't about the correctness of the edit, but WP:DENY and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xayahrainie43. They are such a persistent and problematic block-evader (or by now, actually, global block evader) that the appropriate reaction to their edits is to revert on sight without comment rather than check more carefully whether any of them made sense. Many of our mathematics articles have been put on long-term semiprotection because of this one editor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I guessed that was the reason. But I don't think an obviously incorrect link should stand because of it. I'll make the edit myself. SpinningSpark 07:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David, I wanted to thank you for all your contributions to Euclid–Euler theorem! I created this article back in 2014, as I noticed there wasn't an article on this topic on Wikipedia. I only knew a bare minimum about the topic when creating it, though, and I remember wondering if others more knowledgeable than me would eventually contribute to it and make it really good. It's so nice that it's now become a Good Article thanks to all the work you and other contributors have put into it since then! Llightex (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

On 24 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Emily Sinclair, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 100 years after Mary Emily Sinclair wrote a master's thesis in mathematics on the discriminants of quintic polynomials, Helaman Ferguson based a sculpture on her work? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Emily Sinclair. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mary Emily Sinclair), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | November 2021, Volume 7, Issue 11, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 212, 213 Online events: New: Film + Stage | Endocrine health Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month 2021 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Could you maybe try to unify the inline citations? At least citations like "See R Vidal et al., Chung and Furukawa [1]," could be improved :) Biggerj1 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The citations there could definitely be improved. Nevertheless, your placement of a big banner at the top of the page falsely claiming that there were no inline citations at all was a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a need for more Inline citations. I searched for another template in the hope that it stimulates you or Others to add more Inline citations (possibly Just from the already existing list of references). Biggerj1 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

{{refimprove}} maybe? or {{reference style}}? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

) anything which works for you. Maybe both? I don't want to Stress you. Thanks for your understanding Biggerj1 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work revamping and maintaining the Three utilities problem article, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, a few of the articles provide implementations for the algorithms—which are mostly on either C++ or C. But I could see a lot of style inconsistencies, which leads to uglier code and makes it hard to understand. I know pseudocodes are preferred over languages specific implementations, but I think we should standardize the C++ implementation's style. I propose that we use clang-format with LLVM style guideline for the articles, to make them consistent and easier for readers to understand, under MOS:SOURCE. Let me know what you think. WikiLinuz (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Definitely no. Pseudocode is ok. Python or similar pseudocode-like languages maybe. C++ no. There's way too much obscure boilerplate needed to make it compile that has nothing to do with presenting algorithms to human readers. And presenting algorithms in code rather than pseudocode encourages articles to become code farms where all the editors compete to include yet another implementation in their own different favorite language, which is not what Wikipedia is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reason (WP:NOTREPOSITORY#3) why I re-written the entire binary search tree article. It was turned into a code farm; I removed every C++ in there and replaced it with sourced pseudocode. But see AVL tree or Red–black tree articles—which I didn't touch yet—for example; we could see a lot of language-specific constructs in there, which motivated me to propose this. WikiLinuz (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

(PS: I plan to work on the two articles I mentioned above, not yet, but soon; so that I can clean that up.) WikiLinuz (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David,

I just want to thank you for creating the article on my mother Cicely Ridley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicely_Ridley

Did you know her?

Aidan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan Ridley (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! No, I didn't know her at all. I've been creating large numbers of articles (maybe ~2000 by now) on women who made significant contributions to mathematics and STEM, and she was one of them. I found her name through John Boyd's recent piece Preserving the History of Applied Mathematics in SIAM News. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

An academic notability question: do you think Jian-yi Shi (GS, MathSciNet) satisfies NPROF? (This concerns the fact that I made him a redlink at Affine symmetric group, which choice was queried by the GA reviewer.) In addition to citations, perhaps this is a relevant data point: (though Shi arrangement is also a redlink).

Thanks, JBL (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Borderline but a case can be made, especially because he has a little more to say than just highly cited papers (the Shi arrangement and two books). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --JBL (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Farthest-first traversal 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 RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

After feeling that I'd had to explain what churnalism is one too many times, I started writing an essay. I know that there have been occasional attempts to get WP:SCIRS off the ground as a counterpart to WP:MEDRS, but the challenges seem different enough that the clone-and-modify approach didn't feel quite right to me, and I was more confident in my ability to say something sensible with a more restricted scope. XOR'easter (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Constructible number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constructible number 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. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Farthest-first traversal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Farthest-first traversal 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 RoySmith -- RoySmith (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

What! My edits aren't constructive! I have added an Image of the letter π Nishānt Omm (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you added an enormous image of the letter π to the article pi. It does not aid in understanding the article. The letter is right there as text at the start of the article; seeing it blown up big is uninformative. It is either vandalism or incompetence. Which? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

flagging for senior administration review @Mvitulli: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C4:C400:4A0:65A0:BB2C:DF36:D603 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering who this is, what they think they are trying to do, or why they are calling for the assistance of another mathematician while at the same time demanding that all mathematicians must stay away from the dispute: see Talk:Thomas H. Brylawski and the history of Thomas H. Brylawski. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have the WP:3RR report almost ready to go, in case you're working on it yourself. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I had thought they were only on their third revert but I must have miscounted. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure how to source to the statements of highly precise mathematical approximations given to me by a scientific calculator, any student of trigonometry can calculate these numbers.

• ${\displaystyle 2\times |{\frac {22}{7}}-\pi |<|{\frac {4}{\sqrt {\varphi }}}-\pi |}$ is simply a statement of mathematical fact, does this require a citation to a published proof?

• I'm not sure what is "(Lulu?!)woo" about mechanically measured survey information on the Great Pyramids ultimately sourced from educated archeologists that did the work.

I would like a better explanation than "(Lulu?!)woo" for these revisions from an educated college professor, or please reverse your undo of my edits.

Respectfully, Thedarkgreenmeme (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

All contributions need to have published reliable sources from which they can be verified. Books available through Lulu are self-published and do not count as reliable sources. See WP:RS. Also, over-credulous numerical fitting of pyramids and other ancient architecture to the golden ratio is a perennial problem with modern sources, especially the low-quality ones, and not much more useful than the fits seen at https://xkcd.com/spiral/ . —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The sources all pointed to underlying survey data. If you didn't like that particular source, you could have simply removed it, instead of removing all my edits. A rock solid source of information on the slope of the Pyramids of Gizeh are by W.M. Flanders who found in his 1883 survey (last published by Cullen Press, 2020) that the seked on Khufu's pyramid is between 51º 50' 40" and 51º 57' 30".

You removed as an 'unsourced new section' the calculated angles of the Kepler Triangle, something that former student of a high school trigonometry class can easily verify with a decent scientific calculator, and you did not address this in your response, so I think you may have failed to even read it before removing it.

Likewise, the information about the mathematical coincidence and pi I feel is erroneous. I'm not looking to remove it, but I think the statement I added helps to dispel any mysticism about this coincidence. As I already just pointed out, and you did not address, is that the simple value 22/7 is twice as good as the value of ${\displaystyle {\frac {4}{\sqrt {\varphi }}}}$ as an approximation to pi, easily verified on a scientific calculator.

I request that you revert my edits, and I will replace the reference to which you object with another. Respectfully, Thedarkgreenmeme (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No. Also, performing your own calculations from survey data, and comparing the results to some mathematically defined values, is original research (and also more numerology than archaeology). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I deeply resent the insulation that I am numerologist, and find it extremely insulting. ,My edits have nothing to do with numerology. You apparently did not comprehend or even read my edits before reverting them, and if you did, you could have easily verified them yourself. I am considering ceasing all of my donations to WikiMedia foundation, since the phrase "The Encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a lie. Thedarkgreenmeme (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Handshaking lemma 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Handshaking lemma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Handshaking lemma 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Feedback arc set 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 SnowFire -- SnowFire (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I did a review of Feedback arc set. I considered using the GA notification template but the "onhold" is weirdly hostile about how maybe the article will fail if you don't act soon, which I highly doubt in this case. Anyway, take a look, it's at Talk:Feedback arc set/GA1. SnowFire (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I passed the article (although I will defend my honor on the preferring dry opening sections bit you brought up!). One FYI though - I added the article to the "Programming" subsection of Wikipedia:Good articles/Engineering and technology since 2SAT is there and this article seems close-ish to that, but if you think it'd fit better elsewhere (in Mathematics or a different subsection of Engineering & Technology), feel free to move it. SnowFire (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you have a look on the edit war at Exponentiation by squaring. IMO, the best solution is a protection of the page. If I ask you directly instead of submitting a request to an administrator's noticeboard, it is because distinguishing this vandalism from a content dispute requires some competence on algorithms.

Thanks in advnce. D.Lazard (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Opaque set 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Feedback arc set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Feedback arc set 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 SnowFire -- SnowFire (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Three utilities problem 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, David. Would you do me a favor and tell me whether Thomas Niederkrotenthaler (https://www.csh.ac.at/researcher/thomas-niederkrotenthaler/) qualifies under PROF rules? He's cited in a couple of articles that I was looking at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider myself expert at understanding citation patterns in medicine and psychology, where the numbers can be very high. His numbers would be high for many other fields, but I'm not sure they're anything special in his area (suicide psychology). His associate professor rank is also not helpful at making a decision. His cv lists two prizes, but both appear to be best-paper awards given to a research group rather than individual awards for broader excellence. So nothing is standing out to me; it's the kind of profile that I would consider unobjectionable in a Wikipedia academic biography but not in any particular need for creation. Maybe a weak keep from me if it came to an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate you taking the time both to do the analysis and to explain it to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The pronunciation is not at all obvious. I was pronouncing it "bor-ROM-ean" in my head until I looked it up. WP is for everyone, not just ppl who already know the topic. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't delete tags intended to improve an article without improving the article. Doing so is just being an ass, and edit-warring over tags is just as likely to get the deleting blocked. You should be trying to make WP articles better, not worse.

BTW, I was thanked for adding the pronunciation, by someone who evidently didn't find it any more "obvious" than I did. — kwami (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting of you to talk about edit-warring when by my count you are now up to four reverts, well after I stopped. Anyway, despite the revert on your talk, you have been warned and that makes you blockable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Opaque set you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Opaque set 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 Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is Alan Selman’s wife, Sharon Selman. His birthdate is April 2, 1941 not April 1. I know your source was his University at Buffalo web page. They got it wrong and I was in touch with the chairman to correct it. I actually wrote his obituary for the funeral home’s website when he passed away. UB ‘s CSE department took the obituary and added his birthdate (incorrectly) and death date (correctly) and called it “in Memoriam.” You will see my name listed in this first reference. So please, please change his birthdate back to April 2. I was married to him for over 57 years. I think I should know the correct date of his birth! Sharsel2 (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe you, but you need a publication or official web site like the departmental one that has the corrected date first, before it can be corrected here. (Coincidentally, April 2 is also my father's birthday, but a few years earlier.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I recall you created a redirect during some discussion in which I was involved, not I assume because you thought the references suggested that as an alternate name or intrinsic part of the page's subject. Would you consider deleting it? ~ cygnis insignis 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

But the title is right there in the text of the linked article and in the image shown of the emblem. Is there a problem with the fact that it links there? I linked it because the discussion caused it to occur to me that (independent of your usage of its as a user name) the redirect that should exist and be listed in Category:Latin mottos (a category in which I have edited other articles). If I had encountered the same discussion of the origin of the same motto but without any participant in the discussion having that name I would have probably done the same thing. Do you think that having it as a user name means it should be forbidden as a title in article space? Or do you have an article-space-relevant reason why it is a bad redirect? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I take it Lattin is like Latin except with more T's. EEng 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Three-t latttin. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Professor David Eppstein,

Since 2014 until now, Could you review the Dao’s theorem on six circumcenter again?

https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Định_lý_Đào_về_sáu_tâm_đường_tròn

Best regards Dao Thanh Oai

Are you still naming things after yourself and editing primarily in a way that promotes your named-after-yourself works on Wikipedia? I'm surprised you haven't also been banned from the vi Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see: Original posted http://adgeom.epizy.com/message.php?msg=1531 and https://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml I named the theorem is: Another seven circles theorem. Professor Paul Yiu and Mister Dergiades named theorem after mine. I only known the Theorem name after me when the paper published.

I ask you review the theorem and reference; I didn't ask you review the name. I wonder why your answer based on name? Because You can review as Geometer, don't as admin of wiki.

Until some years, I contact with you because I think You are geometer, I don't contact with you because You are admin of wiki.

Best regards Dao Thanh Oai

Immediately cease this harassment. 109.70.40.55 (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverting bad formatting edits is not harassment. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a bad reason. 109.70.40.55 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do you insist in pure theory? Didn't I explain a technical issue where this curve is of relevance? Do you know any other point of relevance in nature?

A curve of constant width is to be avoided in drilling holes. If you don't know any other link to real world, keep this one described in the article. --Vollbracht (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me guess. You're still hurt over the reversion of your edit last February in which you added a totally inappropriate image of a standard drill bit (not related in any way to non-circular curves of constant width) to this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you're having a rough day today, DE. EEng 02:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a fine day, except for not being able to go outside because the air is nasty (there's a big tire fire the next county over, apparently). It's the people I've been reverting who have been having rough ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, could you please block 220.132.207.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this IP as also was blocked in zhwiki. Thank you. SCP-2000 06:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. What is this, old home week today? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Another one 211.23.210.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Was blocked in zhwiki . --SCP-2000 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, whacked. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

威士忌迴旋曲 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also was blocked in zhwiki. Thanks. --SCP-2000 12:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Already blocked before I could get to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

蘇歆喬447 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also was blocked in zhwiki. Thanks. --SCP-2000 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Just leaving this on your talk page to not drive the conversation at RSN off-topic. I wanted to make you aware that mr. Bobby has been blocked 5 times for edit warring. Might be worth considering going to ANI or asking an admin for their opinion on the user, seeing how he's lashing out and avoiding consensus. I am currently blocked from ANI for a few months due to WP:CIR so I can't necessarily comment too much on that front, but it is definitely an option. Hope you have a good week :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 22:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I hadn't looked at their block log. The immediate dispute seems to have calmed down, though, so I don't have any reason to escalate it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Glad it's calmed down! Also, as a small aside, it's very nice to see CompSci professors on Wikipedia seeing how I plan on teaching in the future (my areas of interest are stochastic models and game theory). Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 23:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

On 24 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constructible number, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an equivalence between algebraic and geometric definitions of constructible numbers helps prove the impossibility of squaring the circle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constructible number. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Constructible number), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

On 25 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Handshaking lemma, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that whenever some of the people in a party shake hands, the number of people who shake an odd number of other people's hands is even? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Handshaking lemma. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Handshaking lemma), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,471 views (455.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No-three-in-line problem 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 Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The article No-three-in-line problem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No-three-in-line problem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

The article No-three-in-line problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No-three-in-line problem 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 Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The article Three utilities problem you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Three utilities problem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was on my way to file an ANI notice when the "skip the drama" suggestion at WP:ANI caught my eye and it occurred to me to post here first. But please let me know if you'd prefer that I just go straight to ANI. You might remember a few months ago when User:ThurstonMitchell was diffusing women out of non-diffusing academic categories, so that they were only classified as (say) "women political scientists" and not as "political scientists". The relevant conversation was here. Similarly, over the last 2 days BostonMensa has been using HotCat to take women out of non-diffusing parent categories so that they are only in subcategories. After their first round of edits I attempted to start a conversation here, but rather than engaging, they just re-did one of the edits I objected to (it violates WP:EGRS point 5, and the category is specifically marked as non-diffusing). I then commented again on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion, and pointed them to the conversation I tried to start with ThurstonMitchell about the same thing at Category talk:American women political scientists. Instead of engaging in either discussion, they resumed today using automated editing tools to remove women from their professional categories because they are in a non-diffusing subcategory: see e.g. 1, 2, 3. Again, let me know if you'd rather I post at ANI instead. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I would have responded more quickly, but I happened to be offline all day. It looks like this one may need to go to ANI, unless you think it's the same person as ThurstonMitchell editing under a different name in which case WP:SPI may be a better choice. There are too many more issues than just the use of automated tools to mass-miscategorize, although that's already pretty severe. User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao may also be interested in weighing in, as someone who uses power tools for categorization (I don't), knows how to do it right, and is probably better placed to clean up some of the mess if (as seems likely) BostonMensa is unwilling to clean up their own mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: It's way past my bedtime right now, but I did want to leave a note telling you I'll look into this in the morning. Some of it, at least, should be fairly easy to undo with automated tools; some may be a bit trickier. But it can be taken care of with relative ease. Anyhow - if I don't chime in again in a couple of days, just give me a light slap upside the head to remind me. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you for the responses (pinging Ser Amantio di Nicolao in case you don't see this), and I'm very sorry to raise this issue and then disappear — I submitted my PhD dissertation yesterday so I was a bit preoccupied. All of this makes sense. Looking back through the user's contributions it looks like there were a lot of EGRS violations before I noticed what was happening, so I hope there's an automated solution. But of course I'm more than happy to help with cleanup, whether there's a better way to do it than manually or not, so please let me know if another pair of hands would be be helpful. Anyhow, to ANI it is then. Sigh. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I submitted my PhD dissertation yesterday so I was a bit preoccupied. I'll bet -- congrats! --JBL (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Astrophobe: First of all: congratulations. Second of all: more congratulations. Third of all: ...you get the idea. :-)

Anyhow. I've reviewed the case a bit more, and this doesn't seem to be someone who has been removing articles wholesale from one category. That makes automated repopulation difficult, because any automated category repopulation I perform is going to only dredge up two or three articles, which might just as well be recategorized manually. And for some categories there's the added wrinkle of subcategories. (See, for instance, Category:American sociologists. I can use Cat-a-lot to copy everyone from Category:American women sociologists into the parent, but that will pick up some articles that belong in the subcats. I can then go through the subcats and clean them out, but that's a sometimes messy business, for a variety of reasons.)

Any idea of a particular set of professions that were targeted? That might give me a good jumping-off point to try and fix some of the issue. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Three utilities problem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Three utilities problem 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 The Most Comfortable Chair -- The Most Comfortable Chair (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

		The Mathematics Barnstar
		For over 15 years of dedicated editing and hard work that you have put in to improve hundreds of articles related to mathematics — elevating dozens of them to good article status. Your work is commendable and you are an asset to the project. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

...in this discussion, and I thought you'd like to know as you were not pinged. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier being tendentious again, but this time in some Israel-Palestine related BLP? That sounds like a win-win situation that anyone would rush to participate in. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. You should know, Infinity Knight has filed a complaint about you at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Conduct of David Eppstein. – Joe (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

On 5 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feedback arc set, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that for round-robin sports tournaments, finding a ranking of the competitors that minimizes the number of upset games is an instance of the feedback arc set problem? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feedback arc set. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Feedback arc set), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Well done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention to WP:DISINFOBOX on the Mariolina Padula page, I wasn't aware of the standards surrounding infoboxes. Will keep this in mind going forward! Best, Coolcactus04 (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on your comment in the category talk discussion, I gather that you would have opposed the recent effort to delete the entire category tree of alumni categories. I think this is poised to be a recurring problem, and despite the outcome of that discussion I think we are headed towards an RfC on the question of whether such categories should exist and perhaps how they should be used. This may be something of a pitched battle, so I would certainly appreciate your input on the best solution to the controversy. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't do it. They are clearly defining, at least for some people. I will argue that strenuously on any RFC. This amounts to IDONTLIKEIT and is likely a waste of time. Tell the people pushing for this to find something more useful to do with their and our time. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, and will consult further as things develop (or, at least, if things develop). BD2412 T 06:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

My hope is that the quick end to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 5#Category:Alumni by educational institution may hold any moves in this direction off for a while. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi David,

Thank you for working to improve the fast inverse square root article--I don't remember if I ever thanked you for the work on it at any point in the last decade so I figure I should do so now. :)

This blog post was just added to the page. I suppose you'll see it on the watchlist but I felt it might be interesting to you independently as you worked on the article. Protonk (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for assisting, and I am totally sorry for the misguided post, which I considered to be uncontroversial and now realize how much it is. I copied the discussion to my talk page and will point to it on the article's talk page.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I had nominated binary search tree for GA a few weeks ago since I believe it meets the criteria. Would you be willing to give it a review, or any remarks, if you have some free time? Thanks, WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I put in some significant edits to the "types" section a week ago. Unfortunately I think that disqualifies me as a reviewer. But I can continue looking at it to see what else I think I can improve. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

On 15 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No-three-in-line problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one can place 16 pawns on a chessboard such that no three pawns lie on the same line? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No-three-in-line problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, No-three-in-line problem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,527 views (543.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Square pyramidal number 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 Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Regular number 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

On 20 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Three utilities problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is impossible to draw non-crossing lines from three houses to three utilities (pictured) in a plane? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Three utilities problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Three utilities problem), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,408 views (1,450.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, David Eppstein! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Regular number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Regular number 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 Shushugah -- Shushugah (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Square pyramidal number you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Square pyramidal number for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Square pyramidal number you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Square pyramidal number 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 Olivaw-Daneel -- Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year from Women in Red Jan 2022, Vol 8, Issue 1, Nos 214, 216, 217, 218, 219 Online events: New: Climate (year-long initiative) | Women in business | US territories Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2021 Other ways to participate: Encourage someone to become a WiR member this month. Go to Women in RedJoin WikiProject Women in Red Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This diff is beautiful. Thanks! jp×g 22:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It was a while ago now, but it's still nice for my changes to be appreciated. Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

		The Women in Red Barnstar
		Thank you for making numerous articles on women, especially by reducing the number of redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships. Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that you have removed every mention of hyperfactorial from Factorial. Nevertheless Hyperfactorial still redirects here. IMO, it should be redirected to K-function, but this require some editing of the new target. Thanks in advance for fixing this issue. D.Lazard (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice the issue with the redirect. That article seems like a plausible redirect target, if it is to be a redirect. It's very badly sourced, though, making its notability unconvincing. Adding material on hyperfactorials there would require sourcing, and with sourcing in hand, it might make more sense to turn hyperfactorial into a separate short article. I don't consider the MathWorld page or the two exercises in Concrete Mathematics adequate; OEIS:A002109, Alabdulmohsin's book, and the Aebi/Cairns Monthly article might make a decent start on sourcing, though. If it becomes an article it might also warrant a line or two in Factorial#Related sequences and functions but I don't want to list things there that don't have separate articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now at Hyperfactorial. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy new year. D.Lazard (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

A token of thanks Hi David Eppstein! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)