Archives

2006, 2007 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2013d 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d 2018a, 2018b, 2018c, 2018d 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d 2020a, 2020b, 2020c, 2020d 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2022d 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d

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.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Small set expansion hypothesis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sohom Datta -- Sohom Datta (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simple polygon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sohom Datta and User:Dedhert.Jr: thanks to both of you for taking this on! I'm traveling for the next few days and after that I may be busy preparing for the start of the term, so please don't worry if I'm a little slow to respond. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, no issues :) Sohom (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you act as an administrator against the behavior of a WP:SPA who is edit warring for including his Python program in Power set: 8 additions (without any summary) of their out-of-scope Python program, which were reverted by three different editors (including myself). They got three warnings on their talk page, to which they answered three times by blanking their talk page. No answer at Talk:Power set#Python implementation. This is not only a case of WP:edit warring, but the refusal of any discussion shows that this is also a case of WP:NOTHERE.

By the way, I which a happy new year to you. D.Lazard (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalker here. You might have quicker response from WP:3RRN, especially based on time zones. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a report on WP:3RRN. D.Lazard (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly offline today so even a favorable timezone wouldn't have helped. Looks like you got it resolved there, anyway. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Simple polygon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simple polygon for comments about the article, and Talk:Simple polygon/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dedhert.Jr -- Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. But are there any tips from you for writing GA Mathematics? I'm currently thinking of another GA potential, but it seems that I'm stuck while trying to improve them. The last time was because of broad coverage in the article Square pyramid, and I could not repeat the same mistake. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main one is to self-review the article at least as thoroughly as if you were a GA reviewer, and fix up everything that as a reviewer you would think should be fixed up. The main parts that usually need improvement are:

• Referencing. Everything needs a reference. Most non-GA articles are missing sources for a lot of their material.
• Using clear non-technical language instead of formulas and jargon whenever possible.
• Covering all the main aspects of the topic without getting lost in details and related but off-topic material.
• Arranging the article into a clear and logical overall structure, that also puts the less-technical material earlier and the more-technical material later.

—David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Thanks for the tips. I have learn that GA must require references and not using some technical languages. However, the only thing that I confused is the coverage. For example, if I'm writing about any polyhedron, I'm thinking about the property and construction (if it's possible) are the obvious things that need to be explained in detail. However, there are some articles on polyhedra that do not have applications, related polyhedra, or graph theory. I have looked up the difference of both articles Triaugmented triangular prism (mentioning about the graphs more specifically) and Jessen icosahedron (it doesn't mention the applications and graph, but the related polyhedra instead).

So, in conclusion, does all of those three things particularly important and must be written, or there are some kind of optional? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether different articles have the same organization into sections is much less important than whether they each have an organization that makes sense and that covers all of the important research into their topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tips. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. One more thing. You said that GA should using clear non-technical language instead of formulas and jargons. But what about the article with unavoidable technical? It reminds me about three articles of yours: Dehn invariant, Free abelian group, and Mobius strip (which is failed on the first review and passed on the next one)? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said to use non-technical language only "whenever possible". Often some parts of the article are technical, because it is not possible to cover the necessary material in a non-technical way. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Thank you so much. By the way, I'm planning to improve a polyhedra article, but this also involves graph theory as well, and I have no knowledge of graph theory. In that case, can you help me? I will expand the article, and before that, I'm waiting for your answer. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to put {{nobr}} around every sentence followed by a footnote to prevent the footnote from ever splitting onto a new line by itself, the way you are (I thinK?) trying to do at prime number seems hopeless, and somewhat clutters markup. I wonder if it would make more sense to petition the mediawiki developers to automatically force footnotes to stick to the preceding character, to solve this at a higher level. –jacobolus (t) 07:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just footnotes. Mediawiki also does not force mathematics formulas to stick to the following punctuation. The cases I just added to prime number also concern a different line break style issue: if a sentence or clause ends in a variable or other very short mathematics formula, the space between that formula and the previous word should not be broken. In LaTeX, one handles this with a no-break space: a sentence ending in a variable~$x$. In mediawiki, it's better to use {{nowrap}} because a no-break space would not prevent the other problems with punctuation and footnotes. The issue with short formulas at the ends of sentences is not something that can be handled well automatically. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding {{nobr}} around every short sentence-ending word also seems like overkill here, adding substantial source markup clutter. If this can't be handled automatically (or at worst with explicit  ), does it really need to be done?

In any event, line breaks before footnote links seem like a universal mediawiki problem, which should probably still be addressed. It is possible to accomplish in CSS, using: sup.reference::before { content: '\FEFF'; }, where FEFF is an (invisible) 'zero width no-break space' or alternately \200D 'zero width joiner' character inside the ''. The first of those unicode characters is deprecated and we're supposed to use the 'word joiner' character to replace it, but that one doesn't actually suppress line breaks in my browser; the second is an abuse since zero-width joiner is supposed to be for something else; not sure if there's a "right" character to use that actually works. Unfortunately this isn't a trick we can generically do to combine math tags with following punctuation, because we sometimes want to split between math tags and other elements (e.g. two math tags back-to-back, explicitly split up to allow line breaks). –jacobolus (t) 08:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh actually, just an empty "content" also works to prevent a line break in my browser. Not sure if that is intended behavior, but easier than putting extra characters. So it can just be: sup.reference::before { content: ''; }. –jacobolus (t) 09:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Small set expansion hypothesis 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:Small set expansion hypothesis and Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sohom Datta -- Sohom Datta (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Small set expansion hypothesis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis for comments about the article, and Talk:Small set expansion hypothesis/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sohom Datta -- Sohom Datta (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @David Eppstein. I recently found the source about the application of the graph of triangular bipyramid in this https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2023.128313. But I cannot access this source, can you help me with what it mentions about that graph?

If you wonder why I asked too much in this day, I deeply apologize. All I propose for these questions is regarding the potential GA, as I discussed above. This is about the article Triangular bipyramid that I prepared before nomination, and the only problem is the graph, as that section is somewhat short and it could probably need to be expanded. Thank you so much for your help Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sent. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expect to sent me that journal to my Gmail. Thanks anyway. I owe so much on you :( Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On 01:29, 10 January 2024, you gave me a warning that I could "likely get blocked" for a legitimate reply I made to another editor, reply that you even seemed to have misunderstood. I have to remind you that you were an involved party in the discussion thread and you also had a topic dispute with me, and therefore I consider it highly inappropriate that you gave me such a warning.

Per WP:INVOLVED,

In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Per Misuse of administrative tools,

Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required: [...] Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party).

I have to add that it is demoralizing that even though I try to take care of properly analyzing my replies in threads and I spend hours trying my best to make quality edits, I get such an undue warning from an administrator for a legitimate reply. I have expanded on my explanation of what I actually intended to say in the relevant discussion thread. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that I would be the one to block you, if you insisted on putting your theories about inserting OR into the leads of BLPs into practice. And I also haven't seen you putting it into practice. But thank you for playing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"if you insisted on putting your theories about inserting OR into the leads of BLPs into practice". Can you quote the relevant text where I reportedly supported inserting OR into leads? Because it seems again that you are misconstruing what I wrote. Or you can strikethrough your comment. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"instead of taking it out I would say it should be considered how evident its pronunciation is" ... "Not all cases need a citation" ... "I find it helpful to at least provide the pronunciation according to certain general common usage rather than none." ... [Re: is an OR kind of idea we couldn't employ]: "We could, ceteris paribus" —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• instead of taking it out I would say it should be considered how evident its pronunciation is. It is unclear to me why you construe this as original research. Did you notice the context? Because literally it is based on the WP:MOSPRON guideline, which I quoted there before writing this sentence, in the same comment.

If a common English rendering of the foreign name exists (Venice, Nikita Khrushchev), its pronunciation, if necessary, should be indicated before the foreign one. For English words and names, pronunciation should normally be omitted for common words or when obvious from the spelling; use it only for foreign loanwords (coup d'etat), names with counterintuitive pronunciation (Leicester, Ralph Fiennes), or very unusual words (synecdoche).

Notice in the guideline: "common English rendering", "if necessary", "common words", "pronunciation [...] obvious from the spelling", "counterintuitive pronunciation". From there I then wrote "it should be considered how evident its pronunciation is". I mean it is right there in the guideline. How in the world you reach the conclusion that what I wrote is original research then? Can you please explain? Thinker78 (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all cases need a citation. This is literally what the verifiability policy indicates.

All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports.

If you notice, it states only 2 or 3 cases in which citations are required. Namely, for all quotations, any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. It doesn't state that there needs to be a citation in all other cases.

Furthermore, the explanatory footnote of said policy states,

A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section § Citations, etc.

I encourage you to properly analyze Wikipedia guidance in order not to be misconstruing editors comments. Thinker78 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a limit to how many times I will provide an actual response when repeatedly asked "Can you please explain?" with a wall of text that provides no indication that you have digested the previous explanations. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have explained nothing as to how you reached your conclusions that what I wrote are "theories about inserting OR into the leads of BLPs", for which you even stated I could "likely get blocked".

Per Wikipedia:Casting aspersions,

On Wikipedia, casting aspersions refers to a situation where an editor or group of editors is accused of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or particularly severe. Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations are collectively considered a personal attack.

Thinker78 (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]