User talk:David Eppstein

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "New section" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise. For discussions concerning specific Wikipedia articles, please include a link to the article, and also a link to any specific edits you wish to discuss. (You can find links for edits by using the "compare selected revisions" button on the history tab for any article.)

SCIRP journals

I don't see how adding a list of journals which are published under SCIRP violates any copyright. We need to have all these journals properly described and evaluated by the community; the reason I started adding them was to ensure that the people know their "heroes". Метамерік (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Turán's brick factory problem

On 7 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Turán's brick factory problem, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Pál Turán was forced to work in a brick factory during World War II, the bumpy crossings of the cart tracks inspired him to ask how to draw graphs with few crossings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Turán's brick factory problem. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Turán's brick factory problem), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Lea Thau

What 13 sources do you deem acceptable? By my reading, seven of the eighteen references are to unreliable sources like Refinery 29 or blogs, five of them cannot assist notability because they're not independent of her, one is a Q&A interview that cannot assist notability because she's talking about herself rather than being independently analyzed in the third person by other people, one is not a media outlet at all, and two are mere glancing namechecks of her existence in listicles that aren't about her. Leaving us with just the New York Times citations for acceptable sourcing — we're not after "any source that can be found at all to verify the content, but only certain specific types of sourcing that most of the citations in the article aren't. I'll grant that I was wrong to say 17 instead of 16, but there are just two acceptable and notability-assisting sources in the article, not 13 of them. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References on articles (and tags about those references) are not supposed to be about assisting notability, they are supposed to be about providing verifiability. So minor web-magazines like Refinery29 are fine as long as they provide enough editorial control (not just a single-person project) to meet WP:RS. Same goes for MPR, Gothamist, Murmur, the Harvard Nieman Foundation, Rumpus, Good, etc. What is not acceptable are personal blogs (for anything) or sources controlled by the subject (for anything beyond basic factual information). That leaves only the Radiotopia, Story Central, and Earwolf sites as dubious. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

References most certainly are supposed to be about supporting notability — as I've had to point out far too often in AFD discussions, if all a source had to do was verify the accuracy of a Wikipedia article's content, and didn't have to be measured against notability standard, then we would have to keep an article about my parents' neighbour who got media coverage a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard. So no, an article is not acceptably sourced, and has not passed WP:GNG, just because there are two New York Times citations present, thus giving you the freedom to lean on unreliable or non-independent or primary sources otherwise — we're allowed to use primary sources for basic biographical information that doesn't impact notability, such as a person's birthdate or where they went to high school, but every single comma that impacts on her notability or lack thereof has to be referenced to solid, reliable and fully independent sources: a standard that the two New York Times cites are the only ones in the entire article that meet. And an independent source can't just be not personally controlled by her, either — it can't be controlled by her or by any other person or organization that she has any form of direct personal or professional relationship with either. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References in articles are primarily about verification. Some of them should support some argument for notability, but it is entirely acceptable for many of them not to. References in AfDs are another story, but you're not arguing about an AfD. In AfDs, in particular in discussions about GNG, most editors care about the significance of a source (as an indirect measure for how famous the subject is) much more than the reliability of the source (how much of a reputation do they have for careful vs sloppy editing), despite what GNG may actually say, but in the articles themselves this is irrelevant. In this particular case, the main claim for notability is the Peabody Award, not the significance of the sources about her. The award itself should be better sourced than it is, and was to The Moth not her individually, but I don't think there should be any doubt that it won [1]. There's a case that the notability is dubious by being inherited, but your indiscriminate tag spree doesn't help make that case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources in an article and the sources in an AFD discussion are not two different sets of things — the AFD discussion is about the quality of sources that do or don't exist to support the article, not some separate unrelated matter that's irrelevant to what sources cut any mustard in the article. There is no such thing on Wikipedia as a notability claim that doesn't have to be supported by any significant coverage in reliable sources, but instead can be carried by mere verifiability in weak or unreliable or non-independent sources: the breadth and depth of reliable source coverage available about a person is how we measure whether the person is notable enough to have an article at all. "AFD standard" and "article standard" are not two distinct classes of source evaluation — they're the same standard, and the bulk of the sources in an article have to pass that standard with the lesser kind confined to the minority. And there's nothing "indiscriminate" about tagging an article for a maintenance problem — if 16 of an article's 18 sources are unreliable and/or non-independent and not aiding notability, then that is a problem that requires attention and it's not ignorable just because the other two sources are acceptable. The balance between notability-supporting reliable sources and extra-verifiability-in-primary-sources has to be much closer to 16-2 the other way for an article's sourcing to be deemed acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

No. That is bullshit. All that is required is a sufficient number of notability-supporting sources (which could easily be as few as 2) and that the remaining sources are adequately reliable for the content they support. There is nothing anywhere in any Wikipedia policy or guideline about having a high ratio of sources in major media or other such notability-supporting sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

DE's right. Any argument hinging on a ratio of varieties of sources cannot possibly be valid. EEng 23:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Expertise needed

Is this Headless_CMS a keeper? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Like many current tech topics, the sources are currently of dubious quality — mostly tech web sites rather than books or scholarly publications. But there are a lot of them. So probably it's a notable topic. But I'm not sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thx, David. Well, it's Saturday and time to have a little fun:

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner and bottle of wine, they retire for the night and go to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend.

“Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see.”

“I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes,” replies Watson.

“And what do you deduce from that?”

Watson ponders for a minute. “Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?”

Holmes is silent for a moment. “Watson, you idiot!” he says. “Someone has stolen our tent!”

^{Atsme📞📧} 21:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Aequationes Mathematicae

Nice job. Very thorough job.--Toploftical (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Dewey Readmore Books

My apologies- I was trying to add my comments to the Talk page of the main article Dewey Readmore Books and did not realize I was on the GA Review page. Got interrupted before I could get back and move the comments to the right place.Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Böttcher's equation

Hi, Thx for your edits. Can you add moer about computing Bottcher function ? Here are some links :

• http://math-functions-1.watson.jp/sub4_math_020.html (It is in Japan but you can translate it. It works fine )
• http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/MandelbrotSetBoettcher.html

TIA. --Adam majewski (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Notability opinions, please

Before I take it to AfD, your and Tryptofish's opinions, please: Jonny_Kim. EEng 19:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to whether or not astronaut candidates are considered notable here, prior to actually having flown. I'm not sure what the precedent has been. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonny Kim happened quite recently, so I think that you would probably want a new reason for deletion. Alternatively, maybe it's a candidate for WP:COIN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the only relevant notability guideline is WP:GNG, and for that I'd like to see published sources about Kim from someone other than NASA. Without such sources, I'd support an AfD. The previous one had both procedural problems (too many nominated at once) and a lot of smoke over bogus inherent notability claims, so I don't think its outcome should be considered as precedent to prevent a new AfD from happening. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I somehow didn't see the earlier AfD. I agree with DE re smoke. Tfish, where do you see COI? (The article certainly has that smell.) EEng 20:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

At the top of the page, the template there. (Are you having trouble seeing? ) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Low blood sugarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. EEng 00:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Do have some pancakes, then. (Sorry, I know that's a low blow, but that set-up was just too easy!) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Random question

If WP:SPAPARTY is created, where do you think should it point? I'm torn between Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry. Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It takes more than one to have a party, so I'd lean towards the meatpuppet link. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: les noix

And I worked so hard on polishing my post! (replying here in case someone is old enough to figure it out at EEng's tp). It turns out the Internet is no help on this. Way back, when I was in college in Pasadena (60s), the canard about California was "they tilted the country and all the nuts rolled to California. The reversal for LA was "they tilted California and all the nuts rolled to Orange County." (see Orange Curtain)

Les noisettes in Los Angeles County could be almond trees, but they might not grow that far South (nor in the Bay Area either—last I lived there (mid-80s) almond groves were being uprooted for real estate development with the trees sold for firewood.

It's the unwitting humor on EEng's tp contributed by the OC variety that sparked my post. And now I've explained away my intended wit. — (Phil) 12:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Those are really old stereotypes. OC has long since become too expensive for the fruits and nuts. Nowadays it's populated more by rich old people (on the coast), hardworking immigrants (inland), and a fading cadre of aging surfers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

P versus NP problem

I don't know who you think you are, reverting my clearly described edits without explaining why. Don't do it again. What reason could you possibly have for removing an expansion of an acronym? I see no possibility that you thought this would improve the article, and therefore you are vandalising. 82.13.108.84 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edits to P versus NP problem went well beyond expanding an acronym, and also included removing two useful templates (the unsolved and Millenium Prize ones), removing the technical details that changed the first sentence from informal to wrong, removing the warnings to the reader about the difference between being informal and wrong, removing the correct statement that this is the biggest open problem in TCS, etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

But we still don't know who you think you are. EEng 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A hardworking immigrant, obviously, if you look one thread up. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ventus again

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ventus again. Your help in evaluation of the notability of the long list of subjects would be earnestly appreciated:) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 10:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

Jurors and promotion for the upcoming wiki science competition

Hi. I can see from the information on your profile that you work in the academia. Actually, I wish I has seen this profile before.

Have you seen any of my message here or on commons or wikiversity about the upcoming WSC 2017?

I am looking for active wikimedia users with academic background and some bibliometric record (so I can prepare or use their wikidata items) to work as jurors. Originally I looked for people from countries without a national jury but I can't find even a Canadian and I have a surplus of researcher in the life science field. So now I am targeting also common users that showed some interest in graphics. And I don't have any mathematicians or statician yet.

I don't know what's the status of the USA committe and its selection, so you can contact them as well if you are interested. I am sorry that we basically completed the final jury and if you are interested to join at that level, I can only offer you a place in the second-level jury. Would you be interested in any case?

The jurors are not supposed to be all wikimedians, but we wish to promote the use of the images on the platforms and show that there is a continuum between the wiki-world and the academia. At the same time, I want all the jurors to show they are involved in the peer-reviewed process, so the uploaders can see they are students and researchers like them.

Let me know. The event starts on 01/11/2017 or maybe two weeks later. We can define the last details of the jury during the month of November, but we'd like to be almost ready in two weeks, in order to provide the challengers with a rough idea of the composition of the juries. Jurors work after the competition.

In any case, we can contact you next time if you are still interested but you can't join this time.

Also if you can spread the news around in your working environment, that would be great!

Regards.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Request

I noticed your comment here. As you'll be aware, such allegations are not permitted unless they can be evidenced. I therefore request that within the next 24 hours you either add diffs to substantiate your comment, or strike it. Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)