User talk:David Eppstein/2021c

This is an archive of past discussions about User:David Eppstein. 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.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bucket queue 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 Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Colin M: Thanks! I will be more offline than usual through this time Saturday, so don't be surprised if I am not very responsive until then, but I should have more time again after that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Viète's formula 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Viète's formula 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:Viète's formula for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Thanks for the review! I'm still traveling today and tomorrow but I should have time to take a closer look after that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

​ No worries. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pick's 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 Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Pick's theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pick's theorem 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 Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, while perusing the orphaned files category, I came across a number of, er, interesting files uploaded by Knecht03. It looks like you reverted many of his edits at associative magic square as OR/cruft/not encyclopedic back in 2019 - not sure if it rings a bell. In any case, much of his content remains at most-perfect magic square, magic constant, and water retention on mathematical surfaces, and I thought I should check if it should also be removed. Also, should his image uploads also be deleted as unencyclopedic/OR, or are they worth porting to Commons on the off chance someone will want them? I can take care of the tag spree if so, but I figured I should check with someone who might actually know first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the one who posted enormous pictures of dolphins swimming on sand dunes in mathematics articles, and enormous multicolored magic squares with the coloring spelling out the words "help me" (or maybe not that, exactly, but something like that), right? Magic constant doesn't look too bad, but the other two appear overrun with original research and need to be taken to with a machete. I don't think what happens to the images is as important; commons has lots of junk already, a little more won't make a difference, but if it's easier to delete then that's ok too. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, it was a sea turtle, not a dolphin. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I reverted most-perfect magic square to a pre-Knecht version that looked okay, and I stripped out most of what was added to water retention on mathematical surfaces. I'll mark the images for deletion as well - no sense cluttering Commons more than it already is. Can you take a quick peek at the articles and make sure they look ok to you? Thanks for your help. (PS: sea turtles. Why.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Most-perfect magic square now looks more or less typical for a magic square article. Which is not to say that it's deep or well-sourced, but at least not seriously problematic. However, I'm not convinced that any of water retention on mathematical surfaces is notable. I mean, percolation theory is certainly notable and significant, as is the algorithmic demarcation of watersheds on elevation models, but all of the content of the actual article seems to be a fringe variation on those topics, related to the fringe topic of magic squares, with no sense of the actual history of the topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna be completely honest with you - I couldn't tell the difference between a notable math topic and a fringe-fuelled math rant for love nor money, lol. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Euclid–Euler 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 Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, regards Alan Cobham (mathematician), unlike AfD where WP:BEFORE is essential, at AfC it is deemed the responsibility of the submitter (or anyone else) to show notability. A single blog did not show notability - You may have noticed the "subject obviously passes WP:PROF" because it is your area, but at AfC we have to review every topic. As the decline notice says, it just didn't yet show notability not that the subject was not notable. With 200+ submissions a day and few reviewers if we WP:BEFOREd every draft we though could be notable the backlog would be even more than 5 months which is already ridiculous and those not lucky enough to have submission noticed by someone like yourself with expertise would be waiting more than a year. As I see from your user page your focused on mathematics articles you may like to look at the pending submissions in Wikipedia:AfC sorting/STEM/Mathematics or any other subject in Wikipedia:AfC sorting you like to look at. Obviously any editor is welcome to just move an article from draft to main-space that the believe is notable, but if you'd like to put your expertise to use in getting worthy articles from AfC submission please do consider signing up an Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and using WP:AFCH to accept articles (includes basic cleanup, logging, and thanking submitter) - we really appreciate any reviewers with expertise in key areas even if they only review the odd article. If interested we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/List of reviewers by subject so you can log your areas of expertise and interest. Although I disagree it was obviously notable based on just a blog I do very much appreciate you noting it, improving it and getting it main-spaced. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You are doubling down on your mistake by continuing to use the wrong notability standard. The notability standard for this sort of article is WP:PROF. It is based on accomplishment, not sourcing. The fact that the source used was a blog had nothing to do with the subject's notability so your continuing to harp on that shows that you are still not getting it. The accomplishment in this case was obvious even in the one-line stub that you declined, linking to two notable concepts named after the subject. It was a bad decline. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Euclid–Euler theorem 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:Euclid–Euler theorem for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Viète's formula you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viète's formula 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 Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Euclid–Euler theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Euclid–Euler theorem 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 Horsesizedduck -- Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the fast reply on the orphan tag. I have a question about the change you made for the article: "search engine results are not reliable sources". If Google scholar and Google patents are not considered relaible sources, can you recommend alternative (preferably free) sources for academic publication and patents?--Adig-pt (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally I don't put publication and citation counts into biographical articles. The citation counts in particular change too much over time and depending on which database one uses. Better just to list a small number of major results (but with sources independent of the subject of the article for the significance of these results). For sourcing requirements on Wikipedia biographies, see WP:RS and WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Bucket queue you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bucket queue 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 Colin M -- Colin M (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for providing valuable advice to the people completing my task over at the Reward Board! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cairo pentagonal tiling 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Halin 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Halin graph 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:Halin graph for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Cairo pentagonal tiling 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:Cairo pentagonal tiling for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Cairo pentagonal tiling you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cairo pentagonal tiling 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Halin graph you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Halin graph 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration 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 us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A) See also items do not need to be directly related. See MOS B) The article discusses vertices and splits. So the proposed See also item is in fact related even if written as mathematics rather than computer graphics. The one field is a subset of the other C) Revert is not a polite way to ask a question. I have a user page for that Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(context is Special:Diff/1035194329). @Elinruby: It wasn't really intended as a question, at least not directly. It was intended as a non-insulting way of saying that I think Split (graph theory) is totally irrelevant to Popping (computer graphics), and that you were wrong to add it as a see-also link. But also as a way of asking you to justify it more clearly, if you disagree. Now that you have provided your reasoning here, I am only more strongly convinced that you were wrong. The popping article uses "vertex splits" to mean the addition of a Vertex (computer graphics) to a graphics model. This is totally not the same as the meanings of these words in Split (graph theory) where a Vertex (graph theory) has a different meaning (one of several different meanings; see Vertex (disambiguation)) and a split is defined as a subdivision of the vertices into two sets connected by a complete bipartite graph (not at all the same thing as adding more vertices). That is, the most similar thing about these articles is the wording, not the actual meaning. But Wikipedia in general is about meaning, not wording; see WP:NOTDICT. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm. I am not sure you are right but I am entertaining the possibility that you know more than I. I suppose it is possible, but mathematically, a vertex is a vertex regardless of where it is found, no? I have not reverted you in turn, just in case, but I currently believe you are mistaken. I already went back to a current news article though, so I will get back to you on this. Probably with more questions, if you are saying you are a subject matter expert. Elinruby (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No. A vertex in a graph is an element without any additional structure. A vertex of a polyhedron is a point in a space, with coordinates. A vertex in a graphical model is a point with additional properties such as a surface normal or color. A vertex of a curve is a point where curvature is extreme. A vertex of a lens is the crossing of its centerline with its surface. A vertex of a person is the top of the head. You might just as well have linked Cranial suture because it is where the vertex of your skull splits. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Ask yourself, did your repeated pressing of revert, and doing nothing else help here? Please do not contact me further. 89.107.6.68 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi David. I see that you've been active on the DFA minimization article. I've just added a question on the Talk page there: perhaps I have spotted a bug (but perhaps I'm missing something obvious). You might be interested. Thanks for your time. PhS (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Good to see that today, David, we have something a little more illuminating than usual on DYK. Congratulations on bringing the article up to GA. It presents the history and the theorem itself clearly and succinctly. I remember a couple of years ago you also helped to bring Prime number up to GA. Now perhaps you will be tempted to give similar treatment to Euler's theorem or even Mersenne prime? I see your list includes Regular number (unless you prefer Hamming number, 5-smooth, ugly number or whatever!).--Ipigott (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I currently have another two number-theoretic active GA nominations (dyadic rational and constructible number) so I think graph theory, geometry, and computing will be higher priority for the next few, but I'll keep them in mind for when I come back around to number theory again. They're definitely more important than some of my other candidates. In the meantime, I found and removed some old junk in the Euler's theorem article added by a now-long-blocked sockpuppet. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I did my PhD with Florian Luca as advisor, who has hundreds of articles published about diophantine equations and he uses the term to refer to any type of diophantine equations, not just polynomials. It could be a bias from him, but a quick search on Google Scholar also gives articles referring to non-polynomial equations by the term, including some from Erdös. Crisófilax (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, ok. Google Scholar searches for the exact phrase "a Diophantine equation is" find initial hits that mostly continue to say something about them being polynomials (for example). But I am willing to believe that some mathematicians use the phrase "Diophantine equation", without modifiers, to mean something more general, and use some other phrase to indicate polynomial Diophantine equations. Perhaps that alternative usage is even widespread. If so, it should be easy to document its usage, by pointing to reliable publications that say so. The solution, in that case, is not to do what you did, removing the widespread polynomial meaning from the article and replacing it with your preferred alternative. Instead, the correct solution is to include both meanings in the article, with references documenting that both are in use, and with some indication of how to tell one from another in the rest of the article. Teach the controversy. (The bigger issue that our current article also fails to clearly address is the difference between looking for integer and rational solutions.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello there! I thought the description over at Collatz conjecture seemed a bit wordy, so I changed it based on what I thought a shortdesc should be. I was incorrect. Here is how you responded to my making a wrong edit:

Your new shortdesc violates WP:SDNOTDEF by providing zero information beyond what is already in the title. Don't do that. If you don't understand the topic well enough to provide an INFORMATIVE shortdesc, don't touch it.

I think what you wrote was tactless and unconstructive, and I think that was a poor way of handling what was a simple mistake. I really don't mind–people write in this tone on the internet all the time, and you didn't hurt my feelings or anything. No harm, no foul. However, I think you should consider when it's advantageous to use that tone, and when it's more useful to save it for when it's truly necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• After you run all over the place because of disk failures more than only once, you learn that the rookie shock is the lesser of all evils - when the data stayed safe. Some might have learned it already before it could happen! From an other angle, the internet provides us with a clock... that's our biface! It's absolutely allright. Just keep on. --Askedonty (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The main snag seems to be the concern you expressed i.e. as proposed, whether we're in backlog mode is tested at the moment of main-page appearance, which can lead to a surprise a month after you made the nomination. How would you feel about the following?

RfC proposal Version 2:

At the time a nomination is promoted to the main page ...

• (a) if the nominator has fewer than 5 credits (whether or not self-nominated), no QPQ is required;
• (b) if the nominator has at least 5 credits but fewer than 20 credits, the nominator must do one QPQ;
• (c) if the nominator has 20 or more credits, the nominator must do two QPQs (if there was a backlog ) or one QPQ (otherwise).

This way people know at nomination time whether they need to do one or two. As I mentioned to you elsewhere, the whole credits thing and at-time-of-promotion stuff is a complicated way to handle something should be simple, but that stuff has worked that way forever so I'd prefer to leave that can of worms unopened while we get the 2-QPQ principle established.

So would that get you on board? EEng 20:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Better, but I would still prefer something like

RfC proposal Version 3:

At the time of nomination ...

• (a) if the nominator has fewer than 5 credits (whether or not self-nominated), no QPQ is required;
• (b) if the nominator has at least 5 credits but fewer than 20 credits, the nominator must do one QPQ;
• (c) if the nominator has 20 or more credits, the nominator must do two QPQs (if there is a backlog at the time of nomination) or one QPQ (otherwise).

A nomination that requires a QPQ but does not have one is considered incomplete, should not be added to the nominations page, and should not be reviewed (other than to note its incompleteness and ask for the required QPQ).

That is, I would like to enforce much stricter promptness for the existing QPQ requirement.

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I like your bit at the end, though it's independent of everything else so it might or might not be worth the extra confusion of proposing it now. So let's put it aside for a second.

I think your version's got that race condition: a new editor with zero credits can make 10 nominations and do no QPQs, because his credits remain at zero until the first of his hooks appears on the main page. (I'm at a loss to understand how the DYK hive mind came up with the complicated credits system and attendant junk -- it could all be replaced by a simple "Each editor gets to make five nominations with no QPQ, but starting with the sixth nomination you do 1 QPQ, and after 20 nominations [etc etc]" -- but it's what we have and it's tempting fate to make the ball of wax bigger when the main thing is to get the double-QPQ idea in place.) Unless I'm wrong about this, for now can we go with my text above (possibly with your last bit, re QPQ required up front, tacked on)? EEng 21:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that QPQ should start at the fifth nomination, etc. That would be much simpler. Anyway, I have no new objections to the revised version. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng 20:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

---

• BlueMoonset, what do you think of the my modification at the start of this post? If you're OK with it I'll inject it into the ongoing RfC; many of the opposes cited this issue specifically, so I'd like to get the widest consensus possible. EEng 20:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, adding the parenthetical (if there was a backlog ) seems to do the trick, and I think it's a useful addition to avoid uncertainty: the nominator will then be able to determine at the time they nominate whether they'll be subject to one or two QPQ reviews, and the reviewer should know as well. (Maybe a new box on the nomination and talk pages indicating current backlog QPQ status.) There will probably need to be some kind of display on the DYK talk page that shows both the current requirement and also the dates of past requirements so it's easy for reviewers to check whether it's one or two when working on older nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  OK great, thanks. I'll try today to write something up at the RfC that will hopefully bring most of the doubters into the fold. One of the things I'll emphasize is (as I've said before, but doesn't seem to be sinking in) that the switches between backlog mode and non-backlog mode (speaking here of the unreviewed backlog, not the reviewed backlog of hooks waiting to go on the main page -- oy vey, how confusing!) should be very infrequent. The backlog grows slowly enough that we can probably afford to let it build for a year (in 1QPQ mode) before going into 2QPQ mode once again for a few months. So it's not like there will be all this head-spinning back-and-forth, or some long log of dated transition points. EEng 20:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

---

BlueMoonset, I know I'm going to regret this, but some evil impulse compels me... Why don't we just scrap the whole credits thing and do as David suggests in "Version 3" above? It's so much simpler in so many ways, not the least of which is that everything is determined at the time of nomination -- none of this "time of promotion to main page" stuff. You get five free nominations, period, doesn't matter whether it's a self-nom or not. Easy. So, again, why don't we just do that? EEng 04:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

EEng, I see problems with adopting David's entire wording, though I understand his point. (Yes, I think you're going to regret it.) There's going to be a lot of confusion about the idea of not transcluding until the QPQ has been completed: people will get error notices because they haven't transcluded their nominations, and some people will find the non-transcluded nominations anyway and start reviewing them regardless of the new rule. I've read what David's proposed, and it still says "at time of nomination" and "credits", so that's the race condition. It's not something I can support as written. You don't get five free noms only; you could get a lot more than that if you time your nominations carefully, and a couple of extra if you're nominating an article every week or two.

You could use a phrase that instead reads "five prior DYK nominations" as the marker, which you seem to be suggesting (and is not what David has written in his suggestion). That's actually potentially more restrictive, though perhaps harder to count, at least at present, since that would include successful, in-process, and unsuccessful nominations (the ones that are rejected do require reviewer time just like the successful ones do), and the tools we have count prior nominations only by looking at posts to the nominator's talk page by DYKUpdateBot. (It might be more to the point to see how many pages they've created that start with the string "Template:Did you know nominations/".) I'd be in favor of not allowing QPQs from failed nominations be reused on subsequent noms, but that's another issue and I don't think you should add it to the mix.

Something that just occurred to me, though it's probably not easy to word cleanly: if you combine credits and in-process nominations as of when a nomination is made, you lose the race condition. That could apply whether you're checking for five or twenty. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

That's what I get for making an impulsive post in the middle of the night. Somehow I didn't look carefully at V3. Here's what I meant:

RfC proposal Version 4:

At the time of nomination ...

• (a) if the nominator has made fewer than previous 5 nominations (self-nominations or otherwise), no QPQ is required;
• (b) if the nominator has made between 5 and 19 previous nominations, the nominator must do one QPQ;
• (c) if the nominator has made 20 or more previous nominations, the nominator must do two QPQs (if DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode" at time of nomination) or one QPQ (otherwise).

A nomination that requires a QPQ but does not have one is considered incomplete, should not be added to the nominations page, and should not be reviewed (other than to note its incompleteness and ask for the required QPQ).

The high- and low-water marks for entering and leaving "unreviewed backlog mode" will be determined by a later discussion once there's experience with how quickly the new requirement wears down the backlog.

• I agree the "should not be added to noms page" idea makes a technical mess, so I've struck that.
• Quite explicitly the intent is that all your nominations count, whether successful, failed, or in-process.
• Also explicit is the intent that "bystander credits" don't come into it. If you write a great article and someone else nominates it, it's on the nominator, not you. You make an nomination, you do a review, after your first five; you make a lot of nominations, then once in a while you'll have to do a double review. (I think a lot of people aren't getting the once in a while part -- if you look at the current noms page, surprisingly few noms are marked as QPQ-exempt. This is why the backlog grows so slowly, and why time in "backlog mode" will be brief.)
• I'm quite sure Wugapodes could write a tool that scans the DYK archive for who's made how many nominations (perhaps by caching the counts through some recent date and dynamically counting on demand after that -- Wugapodes, you know what I'm saying here I'm sure). If there's some inexactitude in handling records from 15 years ago, that's OK -- we're not calculating people's prison release dates here.

OK, so now what do you think? We've got people's attention focused so it's a unique chance to permanently address the unreviewed backlog, and simplify the freebie system at the same time. Initially I didn't want to open the latter can of worms, but editors at the RfC have got their knickers in a twist and opened Pandora's box, so we may as well bite the bullet and take bull by the horns by running it up the flagpole to see if anyone puts their toe in the water. In for a dime, in for a dollar, I always say.

David, I'm asking you too, of course. EEng 16:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It should be easy to keep track of nominations by editor. Keep me updated on if and when you'd need it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

EEng, you may as well give it a try. It holds together as a consistent proposal, once some edits are made. We want to be sure that we're talking about article nominations, for one, since multi-article nominations need to count as multiple nominations. I also prefer "from" to "to" rather than "between", since some people read "between" as not inclusive ("between 5 and 19" → "6 through 18"). Here's a suggestion for rewording your 4 (I'll call it 5):

RfC proposal Version 5:

At the time of nomination ...

• (a) if the nominator has previously nominated fewer than 5 articles (self-nominations or otherwise), no QPQ is required; *
• (b) if the nominator has previously nominated from 5 to 19 articles, the nominator must do one QPQ; *
• (c) if the nominator has previously nominated 20 or more articles, the nominator must do two QPQs (if DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode" at time of nomination) or one QPQ (otherwise). *

* Note that each article in a multi-article nomination increments the "previously nominated" count for the next article in that nomination, so while the first article may, for example, fall under (a), subsequent articles in that same nomination may fall under (b). (This is currently the case with multi-article nominations at DYK.)

A nomination that requires a QPQ but does not have one is considered incomplete, and should not be reviewed (other than to note its incompleteness and ask for the required QPQ).

The high- and low-water marks for entering and leaving "unreviewed backlog mode" will be determined by a later discussion once there's experience with how quickly the new requirement wears down the backlog.

I did include the asterisk at the end of each letter going to the explanation about how multi-article noms increment, though it's probably a bit too involved and needs editing. I think I've run out of gas on this RfC. Please proceed how you wish; no need to ping me further. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant work. EEng 05:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I can't seem to get an h-index for Francesco Danieli. If you have a moment, could you appraise his article? Thank you in advance. --- Possibly ☎ 06:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

He's a historian, so citation counts aren't going to mean much. Try book reviews. Searching Google Scholar for works with his name in the title finds three; probably there are more. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Steinitz's 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 Legobot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

An ad hominem argument is not only the sign of a weak argument but is also considered WP:UNCIVIL and contrary to WP:NPA. I perceive that comments made in this edit rise to a level of incivility. Further, the substance of the post could be made without such comments. Please consider this. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not incivil to notice and point out that you were incorrect. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No, but how you do it can be. WP:AVOIDYOU is good advice. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It is euphemistic and bureaucratic to say "mistakes were made" without saying who made them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Steinitz's theorem you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Steinitz's theorem 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi David, please revdel this. S0091 (talk)

Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! S0091 (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dyadic rational 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 Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The article Dyadic rational you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dyadic rational 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 Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

18 August 2021

Please see the talk page entry under the discussion heading

Incorrect statement of conjecture

specifically the addition I made today. After making that addition, I reverted your reversion. Then I made this post.

- Anonymous

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.67.20 (talk • contribs) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello David. Could you cast your experienced NPROF eyes on the article for Gabriela Asturias Ruiz? It strikes me that it may be inflated, seeing as she is only 25. The bio section has her as a lab assistant at 18; some things do not make sense. --- Possibly ☎ 00:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Another "science communicator". These almost invariably do not pass WP:PROF but when taken to AfD their proponents often make an insistent claim to WP:GNG notability, based on press for puffed-up minor accomplishments, and often succeed in getting the articles kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I received notice that there were "multiple failed attempts" to log in to my account "from a new device". Is there any way to learn generally what device and from where? —ATS (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt it, but you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:User account security. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | September 2021, Volume 7, Issue 9, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 207, 208 Online events: New: Women writers & their works Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's leadership & empowerment | Olympic & Paralympic Games Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Learn more about our proposed one-day online recruitment initiative in October. 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Re your edit summary following my revert of your edit to SVD: "The correct answer to DABABBREV is to add the abbreviations to the target articles. WHICH I DID": apologies, I didn't check, and should have (careless, I usually do in cases like this). I still think some of the entries are a bit long - they're meant to disambiguate, not summarise the article - but they qualify for an entry.

Where I'm coming from: I actually use disambiguation pages to find articles. After a few tedious trawls through huge lists of long almost "mini-articles" I've tried to streamline these pages to do their job more efficiently, with as many entries as needed, but no more, and short. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Re your reversal of adding Shannon to Binary logarithm: I'm not sure I understand your reasoning communicaiotn theory as a notable use of Binary logarithm in the list of application of Binary logarithm? Using base 2 in this analysis greatly facilitates the calculations and is the standard base used in texts and journal articles. Indeed, even the Wiki article uses base 2. Granted, communication theory is often reserved for the graduate level, but cell phones are a (far too) pervasive part of everyday existance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainlogic (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The point of my revert is that there is nothing specific to the BINARY logarithm in the material you added. The use of binary logarithms to measure information in terms of bits is already well covered in the binary logarithm article, but we do not need details of every topic within information theory that can equally well be described in bits or nats or bytes or decimal digits or whatever other arbitrary unit of information you care to use, merely because one of the ways of describing that topic is expressed in bits. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}(n^{2}+n)}$ should be ${\displaystyle {\frac {n^{2}+n}{2}}}$ for example. This fraction should be better since 1 times n equals n. 176.88.28.90 (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It is clearer to keep the constant part and the nonconstant part separated. Also, your example is misleading in another way: the changes I was objecting to involve inline text, where ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{2}}(n^{2}+n)}$ is even more strongly an improvement over ${\displaystyle {\tfrac {n^{2}+n}{2}}}$, for two reasons: (1) tiny text in the numerator that is not just a single digit is hard to read, and (2) exponents in the numerator make this take more vertical space, messing up the line spacing and eliminating the advantage of using an inline formula. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, 10,000,000,000, 100,000,000,000, and 1,000,000,000,000 should be converted into an article. 176.88.28.90 (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. What special properties do these numbers have, other than being powers of ten? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

like all of the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth powers and the powers of 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, some types of prime numbers and integer sequences for example. Like this:

• 7,625,597,484,987 = 19683³ = 27⁹ = 3²⁷.

176.88.28.90 (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I've been examining their edits, mostly new pages at a rapid clip, for almost an hour. I was about to take action, but you beat me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, David,

You deleted this article as being the work of a sockpuppet but a lot of different editors have contributed to it over the past 16 years so I have restored it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: thanks for catching this. The sockpuppet mixed in many new article creations with a smaller number of edits to existing articles, of which this was one. I should have just rolled back the edit, as I have done now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would you remove the link on the Redding California page that I re-inserted. The local information provided had been provided on this very page for many years and recently updated. And while you were at it you removed others from local subjects that again were providing information and photos of the beauty that surrounds our area.

• Redding CA “Places of Interest” with images and information of the surrounding beauty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejlewis (talk • contribs) 20:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You are a spammer and I am removing your spam. The match between your editor name and the name of the realtor listed on those links is telling. In addition, by failing to declare your conflict of interest in this matter, you are violating Wikipedia's policy on undeclared paid edits. You should not be promoting your real estate company by spamming links to it to Wikipedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not a spammer, feel free to contact me! Just a local resident who has spent a great deal of time putting together helpful information for people who are interested in the Redding area. Did you take the time to look at the link?? This is exactly the type of content that I am regularly complimented on and it has been a part of the Wikipedia site for many years for good reason. NO one is being paid and I am not self serving in trying to sell these natural wonders.

If you want to see spam take a look a the "reference" section that includes a link to a gambling site. That is no added content for visitors at all. "City of Redding Flag". Retrieved August 19, 2017. As well as real estate based link with no value to the visitor.

Does your concept of self-serving also include c-span link directly above? It is a private enterprise showing local information, yet it is allowed stay?? How about Bethel Church making their own page to self serve. How far down this rabbit hole is reasonable? Apparently, you and I differ on this. Value added for a visitor is the goal of internet pages worth reading and this is what I have provided on this page and previously many others that are included in the “places of Interest” portion of my website. I’m sorry if you don’t see the helpfulness in this type of content. You are the first in all these years on Wikipedia to do this so I’m a bit flabbergast!!

I saw that you didn't like my edits on the Pigeonhole Principle page. Would you like to work together on an edit that covers uses of the Pigeonhole Principle for dynamic memory allocation? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know of such applications, beyond the obvious point that one cannot allocate more memory than one has available. And again, this cannot be added without published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Would a companion site to a published textbook qualify? I'd like to cite the companion site to "Automata, Computability, and Complexity: Theory and Applications" by Elaine Rich. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No, see WP:ELNO #6. Paywalled links to peer-reviewed books and journal articles are ok, but I think other kinds of paywalled web sites are not. Also, you are still being far too vague about what these supposed applications are. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Some days ago I was reading "Convex polyhedra with regular faces" that I understood that the edges of a quasi-regular polyhedron are shown with the symbol <m,n>. I want to know what is it's name and is there a source I can use to read about it and add it to Wikipedia?

Yours Sincerely, هيربد فودازى٢ (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Schläfli symbol. Usually they're written with curly brackets { ... } rather than angle brackets < ... >, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what is Schläfli symbol. I mean for example r{5,3} has 12 faces {5}, 20 faces {3}, 60 edges <5.3> and 30 vertices (5.3.5.3).I know r{5,3} is the Schläfli symbol of icosidodecahedron, {3} and {5} are the Schläfli symbols of the faces and (5.3.5.3) is vertex symbol, but I don't know what is the name of <5.3>. I saw it in page 170. The brackets where a little different there. Thanks, هيربد فودازى٢ (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Some personal notation made up by Zalgaller, maybe? I don't have that book and don't know enough Russian to read the Russian version online [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to say that I read the article by Johnson here not the book by Zalgaller. Thank you for introducing the book but I can't read Russian either. هيربد فودازى٢ (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, ok. In Johnson's paper the only angle brackets I see are in the "edges and dihedral angle" parts of the tables. I didn't find an explanation, but he appears to be using a notation like ${\displaystyle 60\,\langle 3\cdot 5\rangle }$ to mean that there are 60 edges that separate triangles from pentagons. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I ment exactly that symbol, هيربد فودازى٢ (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, David Eppstein. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Elena Prieto, 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) 08:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User:David Eppstein, hope you are well. I am suprised to see established and respected administrator, pushing gossip style content based on tweets citing WP:SPS, despite talk page sentiment, while removing well sourced content. Relevant edits:

1. [2] Add tweets
2. [3] Remove well cited content 1st time
3. [4] Remove well cited content 2nd time
4. [5] Restore tweets 1st time
5. [6] Add WP:CLAIM, instead of neutral attribution
6. [7] Restore tweets 2nd time

I am OK with being skeptical, however such skepticism should be backed up by reputable sources. Also I do not think that edit comments like Are you totally illiterate or just willfully obtuse? help. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Your mischaracterization of sourced criticism to experts as "gossip", and your tendentious advocacy of hyped-up popular press reporting without any balancing expert criticism, has already been noted elsewhere; bringing it to my attention at my talk page, when I am already aware of your misbehavior, is redundant. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Could provide diffs for misbehavior? And not sure what is your position on the edit comment above. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The edit comment was a reaction to edits which clearly either failed to read and take account of the sources they removed, or did read them and deliberately misinterpreted them, because they grossly mischaracterized their content. Perhaps it expressed the fact that those edits either failed to read the sources or deliberately misinterpreted them in a blunt way. Your continued harping on this point suggests that even expressing things bluntly to you was not sufficient to get the point through; you are still focusing on the tone of the comments, when you should have been focusing on their content. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It is strange to discuss decorum wirh an administrator who should set an example. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have taken no administrative action in this example. And you are not even listening to what I said immediately above in the comment you are replying to: pay more attention to content, and less to tone. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Content issues with your edits were addressed above and on talk page. I've listed the edits that I find problematic and explained why. The fact that you have not taken administrative action is irrelevant: Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others., see WP:ADMINCOND Infinity Knight (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I saw revision 1045464467 of article Multiply perfect number edited by Shit handler at 18:09, 20 September 2021. Their username is offensive and the user is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please delete the revision of the page stated above because of the vandalism by a new user. Fomfeider (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link: Multiply perfect number Fomfeider (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Routine vandalism and mildly offensive usernames are not a sufficient reason for revision deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Professor. I want to know your opinion on this individual in terms of WP:NSCHOLAR. I'm a little confused on this one. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could have a look. I've seen folks refer to you as an authority on WP:NSCHOLAR, therefore I'm knocking on your door. Please accept my apologies if this causes you any inconvenience. Mosesheron (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Islamic religious scholarship is an area in which I am very ignorant. I don't see many scholarly citations to his work in Google scholar but I have no idea whether that's meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that you removed a deletion discussion I'm doing from a category. I didn't realize it was only for professors as it was called "Academics and Educators" Which made me think the deletion belonged there. Didn't realize it was only for academy professors. My bad. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 20:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"Academic" here is used in its meaning as a noun, a person who works in academia, a scholar. The first line of the deletion sorting page states "This listing is for biographical articles". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. I didn't see that as I was using Twinkle which doesn't show me things like that. Thanks for informing me! ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 20:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello again,

The page and it's talk page has been edited again and now there are 58 polyhedra in the list! They reverted some of your edits and didn't give a source for their claim. I wanted to answer them with a list of sources that require not being uniform but remember you saying not to pay attention to them. They even deleted your answer to me!

Your sincerely, Hirbod Foudazi2 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I semiprotected it this time, so there should be a longer respite from the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Hirbod Foudazi2 (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Some people might think that removing merge tags (required for the discussion) is disruptive. Why do you think you are able to do that? Especially since you have replied to the relevant discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Because your merge tags are stupid, disruptive, and WP:POINTy, and you should feel bad for being the one to initiate such a pointless waste of time of a discussion. The discussion can continue; the banners on the articles are a disruption. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I could just have gone ahead and done the merge but I am polite and prefer to follow the procedure that I have been following for years now and which is also followed by everyone else I know at WP:MERGEPROP.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you could have been even more stubborn and pointy in your wrongheadedness. That doesn't make your actions ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red | October 2021, Volume 7, Issue 10, Numbers 184, 188, 209, 210, 211 Online events: New: Women in STEM New Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman Special event: 12 October: Ada Lovelace Day 24-Hour Global Edit-a-thon See also: Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon 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

--Rosiestep (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging