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.)

Dehn invariant of a cube

The article Dehn invariant is somewhat technical and puzzled me whenever I'm trying to calculate the Dehn invariant of a cube. However, I could find a source 233–234, different than the article. Also, is there any meaning when the Dehn invariant of a cube is $(0,0,0)$? Does it tells something about its characteristics when being dissected? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The Dehn invariant of a cube is zero regardless of basis. Because its dihedral angles, 90°, are rational multiples of π, they are eliminated from the calculation of the Dehn invariant and nothing is left. In the basis used for the Platonic solids described in the examples of the Dehn invariant article, it is (0,0,0). In other bases it would still be a zero vector but with a length equal to the number of basis elements used. Being zero means that it can be dissected to a cube, but it already is a cube! So the dissection has one piece. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Icosian game

The article Icosian game you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Icosian game for comments about the article, and Talk:Icosian game/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Move protection request

Can we get a move protection on Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh and its talk page? Every time I look up, or am about to look at something to discuss with the creator, it's moved again, and it doesn't belong in Drafts at this point in time due to WP:DRAFTNO as you had stated.
To be clear, Requesting a temporary Move protection only until the completion of the AFD discussion. Not seeking any edit protection level, as none is needed. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Kleetope

Thanks again for reminding me about the usage of [citation needed]. To be honest, the tag was used to remind readers that the source does not mention another fact, or probably needs to complete the fact from the previous one. In the case of Kleetope, I put [citation needed] to indicate other than Kleetope of regular icosahedron is not supported by the citation, so I hopefully ask for readers to find more sources, if they want to. Well, sadly, I have no idea about some alternative tags other than [citation needed] to do my action. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the tag you want is {{failed verification}} or maybe in this case {{verify source}} (because the source did actually mention all the facts attributed to it). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

ancient math problems - i do not agree

it is about PROBLEMS. read article first there is category Mathematical problem-->s<-- and i created category for ancient math problems. what is the problem with my edit? Ivan191navi (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

in school we solve problems. in uni we solve problems. i added ancient math problems. they are not unsolved problems but they are problems Ivan191navi (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

over 200 words "problem" included in those 3 article why do you think "article is not about proble" . of course it is not about one problme it is about multiple problems. Ivan191navi (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a bad category, badly named, and you should feel bad for making it. The articles you added it to were about ancient mathematics documents, not about the problems they describe. Also, "math" should have been spelled out as "mathematics", for one thing because the abbreviation is different in many other English-speaking countries than it is in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ok. fair enough. Ivan191navi (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

but would i approve if i named it "tasks" not problems ? ancient mathematics tasks ? Ivan191navi (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

but would you approve it if i named it "tasks" not problems ? ancient mathematics tasks ? Ivan191navi (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ancient mathematics problems might be an acceptable category name for article whose main topic is a problem, and whose study is ancient, such as doubling the cube. It is not an appropriate category name for an article about a document. Replacing words by their synonyms does nothing to change this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"for an article about a document" - ok

but for GOOGLE company article we have category "2004 initial public offerings" BUT the article is not about IPO. the google artcile contains information about IPO but article is not about IPO... the same in my case. my article is about a document but it contains information about problems(problems = IPO in google) Ivan191navi (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

there are over 200 problems there! it is a huge piece of information. how would you name the category? Ivan191navi (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Cube

By the way, thanks for supplying some sources in the article Cube. While I have managed this article to promote to B-class, I wonder whether we could add some more facts about the polyhedron in its appearances. I have some couple things: popular culture, science, and architecture. The architecture has been discussed in WT:WPM, some of our members mentioned that we should not add them, but some other otherwise. Jacobolus' opinion seems gives good idea IMO—I have no idea about yours next—and this gives me one problem: should the architectural buildings merge into popular culture, or should they have own section but split them by their location? We have cubical buildings in Europe and Arabic countries, but I cannot put those Arabic buildings in popular culture. Science like cGh physics and cubic crystal system should be mentioned, but I'm aware that would probably been reverted. Daily life things such as sugar cube and ice cube can also be included as well, because I would also focus on the audience, especially for the kids or elementary school students; you know, the cube is a common thing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

re: Constructible number

re: your comment to me in your edit after my edit to constructible number, I was following {{sfnp}}/{{harvp}} Template documentation guidance (specifically section Template:Harvp#Adding additional comments or quotes.

I appreciate you reaching out to me. But in the future, please be polite, and don't rudely assume I'm just blindly reformatting, as you insinuated in the comment.  — sbb (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point. The things you formatted as "additional comments or quotes" were not additional comments or quotes. They were section titles and should have been kept as part of the location parameters of the citation, not formatted as additional comments or quotes. If you had read the references you were reformatting (meaning, gone back to the original source, not merely read the Wikipedia citation) you should have noticed this. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Elongated tetragonal disphenoid

No sources ever mentioned about the elongated tetragonal disphenoid, supposedly known as the dual polyhedron of gyrobifastigium. I prefer to delete the redirect (as well as its talk page), but I think I need your assistance. RfD is somewhat complicated for beginners like me. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mir Publishers

Often, what is not collected becomes lost or at least unappreciated. More so for esoteric academic disciplines such as math and esoteric countries such as the former superpower Soviet Union. (Generally it is one of the least understood parts of mathematics history of the twentieth century, to quote Charles Matthews). Since you are the author of many math textbook Wikipedia articles I wonder if you have any thoughts on this and you are willingly to expand the Mir Publishers article to include its published books similar to our article Springer's Graduate Texts in Mathematics. It can be of interest to high school students while preparing for the International Mathematical Olympiad. Solomon7968 12:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aspersions on your behaviour

FWIW: I don't think that comment was casting aspersions on your behaviour. I now think it was just a (more or less rhetorical) reply to your comment on sharing a block. I honestly don't think anyone wanted you, David Eppstein, to be blocked. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but Thebiguglyalien has had plenty of time to respond on their own, has been active editing other things in the meantime, and has not responded. And, not to discourage your laudable show of good faith, but what Thebiguglyalien was specifically complaining about was editors coming to other editors' defense, as you kind of just did. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024

Women in Red | August 2024, Volume 10, Issue 8, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 313, 314, 315 Online events: New: | Women in film and stage | Indigenous women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) | Translation contest 2024 (July, August, September) | Women in Sports (July, August) Announcements from other communities TBD Tip of the month: Check your athlete's notability before researching and creating her bio. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Mathematics on stamps

Thanks for reviewing the new article Mathematics on stamps and adding the unsourced section tags. I have done some further research and have added ten more sources, doubling the original number of references. If you have time please take another look. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Piper Kelly

On 5 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Piper Kelly, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Piper Kelly secured her position as a competitor in speed climbing at the 2024 Olympics by reaching the final race at the 2023 Pan American Games, before winning the race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Piper Kelly. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Piper Kelly), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mariesa Crow

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mariesa Crow, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that electrical engineering professor Mariesa Crow raises alpacas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mariesa Crow), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Jenya Kazbekova

On 6 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jenya Kazbekova, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jenya Kazbekova, a competition climber on the Ukraine's 2024 Olympic team, is the daughter and granddaughter of competition climbing medalists? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jenya Kazbekova. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jenya Kazbekova), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

continued cruft-pushing brigading

Stop. Your edit summary "continued cruft-pushing brigading" is a personal attack. I am not cruft pushing. You're just not listening. Polyamorph (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I was also coming to this page to comment on the use of that term in edit summaries, which I saw as they were going by as well as seeing Polyamorph's complaints about them.

Wikipedia:Tag team has some good advice: "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team. Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil."

In the vast majority of cases, multiple editors support a certain version of an article not because they are coordinating off-wiki in an attempt to force a change, but because they happen to agree on the merits of that version. It's possible to change minds by discussing the merits for and against in more detail than edit summaries that amount to "I changed it back". Especially in a complex case like this one, it's likely that editors who appear to constitute a monolithic faction when simply flipping an article back and forth actually have heterogeneous ideas, and some of them might end up being your allies on certain points in a new consensus if you break down the dispute in more detail.

Accusing certain editors of tag-teaming when they are independently coming to the same conclusions only makes it more difficult for them to hear reasonable arguments and thus to change minds. It may actually contribute to creating a unified faction when there wasn't one before by giving them a common enemy who appears to them to be acting unreasonably (by being conspiratorial instead of open to discourse).

I'm sure the question of what level of detail should be in number articles is tractable, and I hope that a more nuanced discussion can answer it to nearly everyone's satisfaction. -- Beland (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am certainly on the same side as everyone else that wants to ensure we have good quality articles on integers, without pointless trivia and so-called "cruft". My reversions were not because I am "pro-cruft", but because of the damage that was done to genuine quality content. I have removed entire sections in integer articles myself. But I did so individually and justified each removal to ensure I was not removing quality policy-compliant encyclopaedic content. I have no issue if much of what was removed from those integer articles is removed again, provided sufficient care is actually taken. There is strong opposition at the numbers wikiproject for the manner in which the mass removal of content was undertaken. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this tag-team haranguing fully justifies my edit summary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How do Polyamorph and I constitute a tag-team? I haven't added any material to math articles, so I'm pretty clearly not in any sort of alleged inclusionary-integer-coverage conspiracy. I've actually been slowing removing explanatory footnotes from a small number of math articles where they seem to be drifting off topic, which only started because I happened to come across an article where the footnotes were longer than the prose. But mostly I'm depending on people who are interested in and experts in math to decide what is and isn't pertinent, because I am neither of those things. I spoke up here because I thought it might be helpful for a relatively neutral person to help mediate your dispute.

In general, I tend to assume the more editors who disagree with me, the more likely it is that they collectively have a point, or at least represent a significant alternative point of view. If I assume that more people expressing the same POV means they are less legitimate, and even worse that they are conspiring against me, I don't see how I could be rationally convinced of anything. Perhaps the problem with these recent edits is that the reverts on both sides have been largely unexplained and undiscussed in any detail, so to both sides it feels more like an enemy raid than a disagreement among rational people. -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your behavior on mathematics articles. The behavior I was commenting on here was your and Polamorph's commenting here. That's why I used the word "haranguing" rather than some other verb. As for "feels like an enemy": let the record note that you are the one bringing the WP:BATTLEGROUND descriptions to the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It's possible I've misunderstood, and if so, I apologize. What about the fact that two people have commented on your use of the word "brigading" in your mind justifies your previous use of the edit summary "continued cruft-pushing brigading"? I interpreted that to mean "I correctly labeled the group a brigade because they have now engaged in brigading conduct on my talk page", to which my logical rebuttal was that I'm not one of the editors that edit summary was labeling.

I don't particularly want anyone to feel like they're being scolded; I just noticed the resolution of this dispute was not going well. Given that everyone involved seems pretty smart, we should be able to engage in some meta-cognition and think about why things are going poorly and come up with actionable ways in which things can proceed more smoothly. Being battlegroundy is exactly the opposite of my intention, and I'm scratching my head a bit about that because I don't actually have a dispute with anyone on this topic. If there's something specific I've said that comes across that way, please let me know because I'd want to do better in the future. You may have noticed I've also pointed out some comments of Polyamorph that have been unhelpful, and I'm trying to encourage everyone to talk about content guidelines instead of each other, which seems like the only way to resolve this nicely. -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your first comment here, lecturing me on good faith assumptions in a thread here started by Polyamorph, followed quite soon after my deliberate attempts at good-faith interpretation of editors disagreeing with me was met by Polyamorph with repeated attempts by Polyamorph to explain to me that my opinion is wrong. (I tried several times pointing out that it was merely a differing opinion, but the response was the same.)

So when you came here to lecture me, it came across as having the intent of backing up Polyamorph in telling me that my opinion is wrong. Perhaps that was not your intent, but that was the appearance you created. And now when you dig in and continue to lecture me about good faith, it comes across a bit sourly. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

That's certainly helpful to know for future situations where people are strongly polarized - it might help for me to be very explicit that I'm not taking sides, if in fact I'm not. When I have taken sides, though, I kind of have to rely on people to be rational and not dismiss everything I'm saying just because we disagree on some other relatively independent issue. (Not that a lot of people don't resort to baseless personal attacks if they feel they've been disrespected, which can easily happen in content disputes whether or not that's intended.) -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry for disrupting. But what are some facts or writings that may considered as cruft? I mean, I do not even know what is the background behind this, but "maybe" this can be discussed again in WT:WPM. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, let's take the long version of 744. I think the moonshine part is non-cruft; it relates in a significant way to some very serious mathematics, even if it is presented as a sequence of unrelated calculations. So if I had been the one taking a machete to the article, I would probably have kept at least some of that. But stuff like being the 31st number to have 16 divisors is cruft. You could write such a fact about every positive integer, replacing 31 and 16 by something else. This property says nothing special or distinctive about 744. It is not useful when 744 comes up in a calculation and you are trying to find related properties that might explain why. It is just filler. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

So, if I'm trying to understand here, to put it plainly, you are saying the cruft is off-topic writing and it has nothing to do with such a number? From my perspective, the content of the article "744" describes something related to graph theory, following unrelated topics. Moonshine is also a good topic for another interesting property list, but the rest is GEEZ GEEZ GEEZ GEEZ... (I have no idea again what am I reading at, so maybe I just skipped in the case of TLDR and incomprehensible technical facts). The Riemann zeta function section is good as well. The "other properties" section is another interesting property, though I have no clue whether they are cruft or not. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Putting it another way. @Beland, @David Eppstein, @Polyamorph. I think we should find another perspective on whether the content is potentially cruft from which they are instantaneously being removed. For example, do you think the sandbox I made before implementing to 1729 (number) is cruft content? Content here is in fact trimmed by finding reliable sources and removing facts with unsourced or unreliable sources. Since there is no explicit state about its different system numbers, the infobox can be trimmed as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Several editors are collaborating to define consensus on what is and isn't "cruft" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines. I invite you to contribute and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#A concrete proposal. Hopefully after that is complete it will be clear how to scope individual articles like 1729.-- Beland (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The current state of 744 (number) is... mind-boggling. It goes beyond irrelevance into free-association. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Except that there are powers here: not all indexes are of equal magnitude in mathematics, in the grand "calculus of the Multiverse", as Dr Strange puts it. Radlrb (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To paraphrase a famous saying...: One man's cruft is another man's treasure. (just throwing oil in the fire here...) Dhrm77 (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There are infinitely many formulas and properties that one could state about any number. Only finitely many of them are WP:DUE. WP:ILIKEIT is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bad faith

This is pure bad faith and completely disruptive [1]. Please revert yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

20 edits fucking around with a bot to deliberately break a citation that you have been told would be broken, immediately overriding a deliberate exclusion of the bot from the page, is not bad faith and disruptive? Look in a mirror. You are fortunate not to be taken to ANI with this behavior but there is still time. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @David Eppstein Apart from the issue of WP:CIV and empty threats (as an admin you will know that ANI is not there to resolve content disputes), you've restored incorrect references. (1) "APL 79 Conference Proceedings", "APL 81 Conference Proceedings", etc., are not separate academic journals – they are each a standalone publication, and the original citations were correct; (2) Removing correct DOI and journal title from "DOMINO: An APL Primitive Function for Matrix Inversion – – Its Implementation and Applications" is of no help to anyone. (3) The correct journal title is "SHARP APL Technical Note", not "SATN 40, I. P. Sharp Associates", "SATN 41, I. P. Sharp Associates", etc.

Overall, I'm restoring the edit by Headbomb, thanking them a lot for their excellent bot which has saved editors millions of hours. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

When the bot is deliberately excluded for making bad edits, and then forced back in by Headbomb to make test edits that better belong in a sandbox, the other good changes cannot be a valid excuse for reintroducing the exact same bad edits. And a bot that often polishes minor stuff, often misses major problems like duplicated citations, and often wastes human editor time by breaking citations and forcing human fixes, is not an unalloyed positive. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Notable?

Good morning (where I am at least). I found this academic doing a notability-tag-patrol. It looks thin but obviously not updated, and I'm unfamiliar with his academic field. Feel free to give an opinion if inclined. Geschichte (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to steer clear of biomed because I also am not very familiar with what is enough for strong research in that area. User:JoelleJay might know better for this one, although her standards tend to be stricter than mine. JoelleJay? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)