User talk:David Eppstein/2022d
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear David,
So i was wrong again, i apologise. The upshot of the graph wil now be mysterious to many. Could you please briefly indicate in the caption where we can find the zeros in the plot, if it is not at crossings for zero values? And explain this somewhat? Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Our actions crossed in time, you explained in the caption. Still "touch the axis" means being zero., right? You didn't want me to say that? Cheers, Hansmuller (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Apery's Constant Update
Dear David,
I'm able to verify the result I added to the article using identities for the Taylor Series of and some results in umbral calculus, but I'm not aware if there's a published result showing it. Admittedly, I hadn't been diligent in making sure that any results I found to follow from known results were publicly available.
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I do want to contribute what I've found when I have the chance. Is there anywhere to show the proof for my result, or if not, where can I look for sources that would verify this result? Again, I don't know at this point. 70.108.1.71 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia content is not based on mathematical proof but on published sources. If you cannot find this material in publications e.g. through Google Scholar or zbMATH, but want to make it known, Wikipedia is not the right place for that. Maybe write and publish expository article on the many series representations of zeta(3), and include it there? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Doyle spiral
On 19 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doyle spiral, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that circle packings in the form of a Doyle spiral (pictured) were used to model plant growth long before their mathematical investigation by Doyle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doyle spiral. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Doyle spiral), 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 8,397 views (699.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Mutilated chessboard problem
On 21 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mutilated chessboard problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that if you remove two opposite corners of a chessboard, you cannot cover all squares with dominos? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mutilated chessboard problem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mutilated chessboard 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.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand how a draftification of a poorly-sourced article is "hostile". Drafitifying is much better than giving the page 5 maintenance tags or tagging it for deletion because it gives the author a chance to work on the article without somebody else doing one of those two things. I also don't understand why it's a problem for me to move articles created by older editors to draftspace—it should be a problem that they as a veteran editor created a BLP sourced by a single external link in the first place. If someone moved one of my articles to draftspace, I wouldn't be frustrated with the person who moved the article to draftspace, but rather myself for letting me create such an article that would require them to do that move to draftspace despite me having years to understand the basic article guidelines. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Draftification and user-talk templatification is a way of telling editors we want them to go away and we aren't even going to go to the effort of a personal message. It is unquestionably hostile. That is appropriate for spammers but not for good-faith and knowledgeable contributors. If you don't understand these things you should find something else to do where your lack of understanding will not be biting new editors and pushing them away from the project. Yes, that sentence was also hostile. I react with hostility when people act in ways that damage the project. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kite (geometry)
The article Kite (geometry) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Kite (geometry) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi David -- Could I ask you to take a quick look at the above draft, which has been languishing for months and I think has been abandoned by the creator, after being given the usual bad advice. The GS profile looks quite healthy to me and the subject is deceased. Many thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, cleaned up and promoted. I see what you mean about the bad advice and its bad results. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Tetsuji Oda
Hi David when I click on the link to the archived source for this article I see a single short page listing just six new fellows, of which Oda isn’t one. Your deprod comment mentions 34 pages of something. Are we looking at the same thing? Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- You did click on the archive link, not the original, right? It's a 50-page pdf file. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ok. Yes I clicked the archive link. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Though when I click in the original it brings up a dead page and when I look at the IEEE page I still can’t find the list you’re referring to. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- https://web.archive.org/web/20150906035742/https://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/fellows/2015_elevated_fellows.pdf is a 50-page pdf listing Oda on page 34. Searching by name on https://services27.ieee.org/fellowsdirectory/home.html also finds Oda. The archived link is now a deadlink, that now gets redirected to some landing page instead; that doesn't invalidate it in any way. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Barnstar! 🌟
|
The WikiProject Board and table games Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you this Barnstar for your excellent edits in Mutilated chessboard problem. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
- Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thank you for the help and that you corrected me! :-) Varagk (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC) |
- You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Tic-tac-toe variants
Hello, and thanks for the semi-protection at Tic-tac-toe. In case you're interested, the same made-up stuff is being added by new accounts over at Tic-tac-toe variants. Storchy (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Given the same protection level and watchlisted. I have the impression this is meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry, not that it matters much. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Kitestar for you!
|
Good Math Article |
| Thanks so much for bringing Kite (geometry) to GA status. It's a lovely article. — hike395 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC) |
- Thanks! And amusing repurposing of an image into a barnstar. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Kite (geometry)
On 4 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kite (geometry), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ten-sided gaming dice (examples pictured) have kite-shaped faces? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kite (geometry). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kite (geometry)), 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) 12:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
|
|
Hook update | |
| Your hook reached 7,946 views (662.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Roberts's triangle theorem
On 6 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roberts's triangle theorem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took 90 years to replace the "unconvincing" original proof of Roberts's triangle theorem, on the number of triangles formed by systems of lines, with a correct proof? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roberts's triangle theorem. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Roberts's triangle theorem), 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, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Still interested in Leonhard Euler?
I found some good sources, in German though, but as to me they seem really good and are easily online accessible. Here, here and here are letters between Euler and some of his colleagues. Each colleague (of the ones I checked) has also a rather fairly expanded bio before their letters which include also some mathematical formulas (or however you call in mathematical jargon) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Inquiring minds
I completely agree with the sentiment but your edit summary begs the question, "what is the foremost-stupidest way to give a biographical article a section structure"?-- Ponyobons mots 23:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
DYK for Nicole Lloyd-Ronning
On 11 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nicole Lloyd-Ronning, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nicole Lloyd-Ronning returned to astrophysics research after a ten-year hiatus, aided by an American Physical Society award for women with interrupted careers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nicole Lloyd-Ronning. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nicole Lloyd-Ronning), 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Coordinatewise version of graham scan
I think keeping the sentence "If the points are already sorted by one of the coordinates or by the angle to a fixed vector, then the algorithm takes O(n) time." makes it awkward to beginners (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Convex_hull_algorithms&oldid=1123252177). I've spent hours trying to understand why Graham scan would work by just sorting by coordinates rather than the angles, until I finally found out that you also need to tweak the algorithm in order to use that. Andrew's algorithm is only a couple bullet points below, if there were any references to that or if the sorted coordinates was not mentioned I would have found things out much faster.
It may be easy to understand for a specialist, but it is confusing for a beginner. 2A02:C7F:F0E5:8A00:2E88:9E30:3864:E53D (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with your edits is not that they were referring to Andrew's algorithm. It is that you were doing it by adding links on the text of the article, to another site. That is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. References in footnotes are ok. References by links on article text are not. The proper reference for Andrew's version of Graham scan (I don't think of them as different algorithms) is given in the Graham scan article, as a footnote. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Kirsten Wickelgren
Thank you for the message. I've linked an obituary of her father, which appeared in the Harvard Class of 1960 50th Anniversary Report. This connects her unambiguously to all of her immediate family. I cited a published biography of her great grandfather, that includes descendants through her mother's generation and spouses of descendants through her grandmother's generation. This connects her mother to her grandmother and her great-grandfather. Is that sufficient sourcing? QBobWatson (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Probably sufficient re sourcing. But it certainly does not belong in the lead. It is the least important part of the biography, not the most important. Also, please pay more attention to formatting citations consistently with the others in articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Unit distance graph
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unit distance graph 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Triaugmented triangular prism
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Triaugmented triangular prism 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2022
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Concern regarding Draft:Elena Mantovan
Hello, David Eppstein. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elena Mantovan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem
The article Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem for comments about the article, and Talk:Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Unit distance graph
The article Unit distance graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unit distance graph for comments about the article, and Talk:Unit distance graph/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Ovinus -- Ovinus (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Isabel Hubard Escalera
For the record the error on Hubard's name was introduced in an edit five years ago by another contributor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isabel_Hubard_Escalera&diff=761938730&oldid=761856055
I must admit that I didn't notice this error, even though I know Spanish naming conventions quite well. Thank you for correcting that! TheMathCat (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry for the misattribution. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Telephone number (mathematics)
The article Telephone number (mathematics) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Telephone number (mathematics) for comments about the article, and Talk:Telephone number (mathematics)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Praseodymium-141 -- Praseodymium-141 (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Antanaresis
Britannica is saying that the Euclidean algorithm was originally called the antanaresis (or they might be saying that the word "method" was referred to as an "antanaresis", but frankly, I'm not sure). I've not been able to really find any confirmation for this so am not sure about making a redirect—any thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- That word has exactly one hit in Google Scholar, doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-893-8_10. That's not enough and not scholarly enough to convince me that it's spelled correctly or valid, let alone to figure out what the meaning and scope of the word actually are. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Triaugmented triangular prism
The article Triaugmented triangular prism 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:Triaugmented triangular prism and Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Christine Allen (astronomer)
Sorry - categorizing her under "alumni" instead of "faculty" was a brain fart. Thanks for spotting. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Triaugmented triangular prism
The article Triaugmented triangular prism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism for comments about the article, and Talk:Triaugmented triangular prism/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Sjeez, how could I have missed that??? Thanks for catching this. --Randykitty (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Easy to read the first sentence or two, which looked like the start of a typical aggrandized A7-worthy draft, and not pay much attention to the rest. No problem, that's why we need more than one person to review these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Square pyramid number
@David Eppstein I had reverted the user that added something without a source. Yet, the user might added the image which put on the side of other image (see [1]). If I did something wrong, you can revert my edit and notify me. Also, I am not sure if it's helpful to change the caption [2]. Ping me. Regards, Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
GA rejection
In the GA rejection for IPad you said that statistica is unreliable. Could you provide the URL, explain what it is and why it is unreliable? Thanks, 26zhangi (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- The most recent discussion of this appears to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 388#Statista. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy holidays
 |
Seasons greetings! |
|
Wishing you joyous holiday spirits,  |
|
Beccaynr (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas, David Eppstein |
|
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! |
Seasons Greetings
|
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} | 
|
Donner60 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC) |
Women in Red January 2023
 
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Stop undoing my edits!
I AM ADDING STUFF. ADDING STUFF IS IMPROVING. SO GO F*** YOURSELF. 68.150.64.128 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year, David Eppstein!
David Eppstein,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.