User talk:David Eppstein

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 2024a, 2024b, 2024c

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.)

Hello David Eppstein, I hope you are well. On the page MyRadar, you recently tagged each of the Newswire sources as unreliable. I believe I was able to use them in an unbiased manner, but what do you think? I can remove them and their associated claims if need but, but I feel they still add some important information which could be lost if they were removed. I am committed to making the article the best it can be, so whatever you think is the best move forward I can do. Cheers! Johnson524 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are press releases from a company involved in the product. Being collected by a press release scraper site does not make them any more reliable than if they were on the company web site. They do not meet WP:RS. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, so do you want me to remove all of these sources, or is there any way this information can still be used? Johnson524 19:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it to be a Good Article nominee, everything in the article needs to be supported by reliable sources. So removing them would be best, to make clear that nothing in the article is based on them. But that may also mean removing some information if it cannot be found in better sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Sounds good, thank you for the advice. Cheers! Johnson524 22:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that about math vs. cs. I mistook the commas. Zaslav (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'm trying to write an article on Maya Stein. Could you please take a look at User:McKay/sandbox and let me know if I can do better? I'll add a photo if Maya agrees. Feel free to edit there. Cheers, Brendan. McKay (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made some small changes. It's more or less at the start-class that I usually aim for in new articles, but there are still some unsourced claims, particularly the postdoc. Also, Diestel should probably have an article. There was a bad one created in late 2021 (in worse shape than your current draft) but it was moved to draft space and subsequently deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mention her middle name? It is Jakobine (according to the title tag here). And if you google "maya jakobine stein" you may be able to find more about her. Polygnotus (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's something we can sometimes omit per WP:BLPPRIVACY. But given its prominent mention on her home page that may not be necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Well, I dunno, it is something to think about. I'll leave it up to McKay. Polygnotus (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS New article: Reinhard Diestel. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Stein. McKay (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this! I agree it was ready to promote to mainspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arrangement of lines 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 Electrou -- Electrou (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific pipeline for something like the k=19 or k=21 arrangements, which have very clear visual proofs, to be accessible for citation? For example, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Would an image of an arrangement with clear visual properties fitting the description fall under this policy, if it were within a valid primary source?

Personally, I would have liked to have known that a perfect arrangement had been found months ago for k=21. This isn't to say the rules are wrong for keeping that knowledge from me or anything, I understand the purpose of proper procedure, I am simply wondering what options are available for such a procedure in this specific case, given that images of the optimal arrangements for k=19 and 21 do exist online already. Thank you. BagLuke (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're already citing OEIS, one possibility would be to try to persuade them to extend their sequence to include the new known values. It might help for the arrangements to be shown on some other web site that OEIS could link to. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the help! BagLuke (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]