User talk:David Eppstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

2006, 2007, 2008a

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 "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.

Contents 1 computer scientists 2 Distance-hereditary graph 3 WP:CORE 4 Other conversation about recent topic 5 TopologyExpert 6 Encyclopedia Dramatica 7 Ernest G. McClain page 8 Deleted article - Andre Nickatina 8.1 Second AFD 9 Induced Homomorphism 10 Base 85, Base 64, Base 32 11 Is graph isomorphism in P? 12 Award 13 Archaeology is sort of a science :-) 14 Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory) 15 Graph Embedding 16 Problem of Apollonius 17 Two people harassing me 18 Deletetion 19 Deletion 20 ! 21 Fractional cascading 22 Induced Homomorphism

[edit] computer scientists

please take a look at [1] and see if you can give him some advice. I have no doubt that some of them are non-notable & deserve to be deleted, but he's been nominating wholesale for speedy. DGG (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distance-hereditary graph

Holy crap! You did that whole thing in one edit?! Bravo! Ziggy Sawdust 00:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time editing it offline before putting it up here... Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CORE

I've noticed you have 1337 editing skills. You might want to consider fixing up some of the core 1,000. Ziggy Sawdust 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other conversation about recent topic

You might want to take a look over here, where I'm asking EVula some questions about the recent RfA topic. I'm not sure what is up with the BKerensa account, but EVula just removed some defamatory info from it, which was added by an IP. I believe it was up for ample time for Kerensa to have seen it and remove it, but it was allowed to stay on the front of the user page. Very curious. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TopologyExpert

Dear David Eppstein,

Could you please tell me why you deleted what I wrote on the page on 'induced homomorphism'? I spent a lot of time to fix up all mathematical symbols and write everything up as best as I could. If this is because you think that the 'induced homomorphism' is more related to category theory than to algebraic topology then I agree. But in my opinion, Wikipedia is for everyone; not just mathematicians. If someone wanted to read this page (a student for example), he may want to see its relevance to algebraic topology and not just category theory. I didn't change what was originally written, and I am cetain that what I wrote is mathematically correct. So could you please specifically tell me why you deleted it? I have created many other pages, such as:

• Locally finite collection
• Locally connected space
• Linear continuum
• Comb space

and the style I have written in the page on 'induced homomorphism' doesn't at all differ to the style in which I have written the other pages. So I really can't see why what I wrote has been deleted. Also, could you please respond on my talk page?

Topology Expert (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that I felt your changes were taking the article back towards the direction that initially led it to be (justly) nominated for deletion: a familiar, interactive narrative style that ignores the conventions of encyclopedic writing, and an emphasis on the functoriality of the fundamental group to the exclusion of all other aspects and meanings of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear David Eppstein,

I have inquired a couple of people on this matter and they seem to agree with you. They say that there is too much emphasis on the fundamental group in the article. Is this what you mean? In my opinion, one cannot study the fundamental group without studying the induced homomorphism. They are connected topics. Also, maybe I was thinking that Wikipedia is a place to learn and as much information as possible should be included. For example, someone may want to know about the applications of the induced homomorphism which is what I wrote about. As far as I can see, you have merely given a definition in your article with the connection to algebraic topology. Sure, their textbook would probably write about that but sometimes it is good to read two different perspectives. I included examples so that people can understand the applications of the induced homomorphism. And truthfully, shouldn't people know that if two spaces are homeomorphic, their fundamental groups are isomorphic. That is probably the first theorem you read after learning the concept. Also, I have not seen a single page stating that if two spaces are homeomorpic, their fundamental groups are isomorphic. This may be obvious to someone who knows algebraic topology well, but it isn't obvious to the general population and it would be good for people to see the applications of this theorem. In fact, one purpose of algebraic topology is to determine whether two spaces are homeomorphic or not.

Wikipedia is about including maximum detail as a few other people wrote to me when I nominated the article on 'Supercompactness' for deletion. I initially thought that Wikipedia should only have information on major topics. Not small topics like what a limit point is (I thought these types of topics should be included in other pages). I admit that I was wrong. But by adding what I wrote, we are giving maximum detail about the subject. My intention is to improve Wikipedia. I understand that you are an administrator, but I feel that whatever I write is challenged. Also, I can't see what is wrong with my writing style. If there are only minor points, then in my opinion, what I wrote shouldn't be deleted. I can't see any major mistakes with my writing. In fact, I have seen many other Wikipedia pages which have many spelling mistakes but haven't been deleted. My article is not as bad as that; is it?

Seeing as you are experienced in Wikipedia, if you really think that what I wrote should be deleted, then could I instead create a new page regarding what I wrote. If possible, I could call that page 'Induced homomorphism (algebraic topology)'.

Could you also please tell me what is precisely wrong with what I wrote? That would help me to write better next time.

Topology Expert (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think rather than critiquing your writing in detail, it might be more appropriate to point you to WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Because it sounds like what you want is exactly what that policy warns against, and it's the basic intent more than the details of what you write that seems to be leading to these issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Dramatica

Thanks for catching that redundant ref I added accidentally. Sorry for the carelessness, it's been a long day. Ford MF (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just doing a little minor cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest G. McClain page

Dear Mr. Eppstein, Earlier today a student of Dr. McClain's loaded a new version of his bio, after consulting with Dr. McClain (my father).

I do not appreciate your changing it back to the version that contains errors that you previously inserted.

Please respect that, in this case, someone else understands more about Dr. McClain's life than you do.

Thank you, Jeanhenley (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Pamela

Please see WP:OWN and WP:RS re ownership of articles (short version: you don't own it, even though it may be about you) and the need for reliable sourcing, respectively. We cannot accept changes simply because you "know" them: they must be verifiable through published source material and they must treat it from a neutral point of view. Your changes did not seem to meet those needs. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted article - Andre Nickatina

Hello, I'm here to comment on your November 2007 speedy deletion of an old WP article titled "Andre Nickatina"; you deleted it per WP:CSD#A1 about the article subject not meeting WP:MUSIC I suppose. Well I just did a little research and believe that the subject in question (Nickatina) might as well meet WP:MUSIC because I have found several sources written about him.

• Two articles in the magazine SF Weekly from 2003 and 2005
• A brief biographical article about him by Robert Gabriel of the site AllMusic.com (widely revered as a good source for music-related articles)
• A review of an old album of his by the San Jose, CA-based Metro newsmagazine.

I hope you consider these articles sufficient for the subject to meet the notability requirements. Please leave me a message back at my talk page if you wish to discuss the matter any further.

Good night, --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that WP:CSD#A1 deletion does not mean that the subject is not notable or does not pass WP:MUSIC. It means only that the article does not give enough context for a reader to figure out who the subject even is. The entire content of the article at the time I deleted it was "The rawest mothafucka in the game." I think you'll agree that's not much of an encyclopedia article. If you write a real article including those sources, it seems likely to me that it would be safe from speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I must've gotten the CSD's confused. The problem now is that the title Andre Nickatina is locked, so no one except admins can write an article titled "Andre Nickatina". Within a few day's I'd like to rewrite the article, so could you please restore the article so that I could rewrite it using the sources I've provided? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just unprotected it for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I will write that article shortly. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second AFD

Main article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Nickatina (2nd nomination)

Hello again regarding the Nickatina article. A user has now listed the article under AFD as the user feels that the subject still fails the WP:MUSIC guideline of notability, despite my inclusion of sources. (This is the second time that this article has ever been in AFD.) Please read both the WP:MUSIC and Nickatina pages for yourself, then express your views in the proper AFD page that I've provided. Thank you.

[edit] Induced Homomorphism

Dear David Eppstein,

I know you are an administrator and you probably know about Wikipedia more than I do, but I feel inclined to state the following facts. First of all, please understand that I am new to Wikipedia and I just want to understand everything completely. I did some research on reverting and on the page Help:Reverting, it states that if it is possible to change some minor things such as mathematical symbols, minor mistakes in conventions etc... one should not revert the article. Second of all it says that before reverting the article one should give a reason why on the talk page. Now I am certain that you know what you are doing. But if there were only minor problems with my article, then why did you revert it (I am not trying to be rude)? As I mentioned earlier, several people say (indirectly) that there are only minor problems with my article. I just wonder whether this is the case; it probably isn't since you reverted it. Could you please give me your opinion on this?

Secondly, if what I wrote is not suitable for Wikipedia, may I add it on Wikibooks instead? I believe this is what you indirectly suggested. I have also had other users telling me that I shouldn't put exercises on Wikipedia mathematics pages. Therefore, I have decided to put them on Wikibooks. I have noticed that the Wikibook on mathematics needs serious editing so I am happy to do that.

Thanks for your help once again.

Topology Expert (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Base 85, Base 64, Base 32

Recently, you have changed the article Base 85 back to a redirect page. I am not going to oppose your action. But do you think the argument "If the only interesting thing one can say about this base is its use in Base**, per WP:NUMBER, just redirect there" is applicable to the articles Base 64 and Base 32??? Could you please express your option (for merging and/ or redirecting articles) here and in Talk:Base64 and Talk:Base32??? QQ (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WAX — this sort of "what about those other pages" argument tends to be a weak one. But if you look at the Base32 and Base64 articles, they do actuallyfind several things to say about those bases. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is graph isomorphism in P?

Why isnt this result cited in wikipedia?66.216.255.11 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[0711.2010] A Polynomial Time Algorithm for Graph Isomorphism

     "In this paper we propose an algorithm that has polynomial complexity and constructively supplies the evidence that the graph isomorphism lies in P. ..."
     arxiv.org/abs/0711.2010

Because it's not peer-reviewed and highly likely to be incorrect. In general papers by relative unknowns proposing solutions to big problems on the arxiv are not to be trusted without careful reading and some level of domain knowledge. Speaking as the arxiv moderator for cs.DS (meaning I didn't look at this specific paper since it's in cs.CC) we only reject papers for being off-topic or for grossly violating the norms of scientific publication (e.g. one-pagers with no bibliography). We don't evaluate correctness, although we will sometimes attempt to discourage authors from keeping obviously-bogus papers up.

If you look carefully at the actual paper (v4), you will see that there is a mismatch between the description of the algorithm as the pseudocode describes it and needed for correctness (it terminates when the vertices are partitioned into n different equivalence classes) and the description given in the "complexity" section (it terminates when no more equivalence classes can be constructed). In fact, it seems likely that for some kinds of graphs, such as distance-regular graphs, it never forms more than one equivalence class and so fails either to terminate or to identify the isomorphisms. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Heh, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology is sort of a science :-)

Thanks. I don't understand why we don't have a separate category that includes the things I'd call the social sciences, eg archaeology, anthropology of various types, history, even sociology, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory)

On 27 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hadwiger conjecture (graph theory), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graph Embedding

Thanks for the references in [2]! That was incredibly speedy! 71.37.25.28 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem of Apollonius

Wow, I had no idea that you were here at Wikipedia! :)

As I guess you've become aware, we're trying to bring the problem of Apollonius up to Featured Article status. It would be quite the coup for the Math WikiProject, since there aren't any geometry Featured Articles as yet. Anyway, if you could give us a peer review, or suggest points/applications/insights or whatever, we'd be very grateful for your help! :) Willow (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two people harassing me

I have two people coming to my talk page who appear to be vandals or trolls, or confused me with someone else. One is threatening to block me, I am not sure if that person can. The other one removed information on a talk page when I was in discussion with, which I am pretty sure is considered vandalism. I am not sure who these people are or what is going on so, I deiced to contact an admin for help before things get out of hand because these people seem forceful and not willing to talk.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are standard warning messages left when someone thinks you have made inappropriate edits. This comment of yours, in particular, appears to be a gross violation of our policy regarding biographies of living persons, as does this one. I think the warnings were appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! How was my comment a gross violation of the policy? I was just joining in the conversation on the talk page, it was on a talk page! I did not say Lindsay was bisexual on her page. I was disusing with others within topic, how in the world is that a violation? I do not think it is appropriate to say you are going to ban someone when there is clearly confusion on both sides, that is an abuse of power.--Sugarcubez (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You made what some might view as inappropriate allegations about her sexuality, and compared her to a porn star, with little or no reliable sourcing. Talk page or main article space, either way, it's still inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic of discussion was about her sexuality though, I viewed what everyone else was saying as inappropriate allegations about her sexuality. They were saying just because she apparently kissed a girl she was a lesbian. Which I find it rude people tend to skip over and ignore bisexuality. So I decided to comment and say that if anything she could be bisexual not lesbian because she has had many relationships with men, and lesbians do not do that. I never compared her to a porn star, that is ludicrous! Did you even read what I said? I said lesbian women do not date/sleep with as many guys as she has unless they are a porn star (which Lindsay is not). Of course there was no sourcing, what in my statement was I suppose to source? I was just explaining to people calling her a lesbian that it was rude because you do not know, and if anything she could be bisexual based on the sources they had, but I tried to say it in the nicest way possible, and it gets reverted!--Sugarcubez (talk)

[edit] Deletetion

I note on the deletetion of One Piece terms. I would like you to restore it because there was no basis for deletetion on copyright infringement which is why I removed the tag for it. The site which claimed it did has annoyed us before (reglaur editors) because it claims we copied it. Okay, let me explain it is a fansite that holds no copyrights over the One Piece series and as a fansite actaully is disobeying copyright laws. Also, I know for a fact the editors who worked on that page got their info from the series and not that site because I was one of the many that worked on it at some point.

Its up for deletetion anyway, but there was no call for that way of deleting it... I didn't even get to put a "Hold" tag on it after someone noted me for removing it because I forgot thats how you do things here. Please in future can you actually check probaberly that what you deleting is indeed a copyright infringement and not someone claiming it is... You made a stupid mistake for nothing that needs to correct. As I said, we're going to loose that page anyway, but the way its gone now means none of us reglaur editors can come up with a chance between us to save it if there is a possiblity. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should just unilaterally undelete it. But if you want some additional review of that decision, please go to deletion review and follow the procedures described there to create a review discussion for the article. The editors at deletion review will decide whether it was appropriate to delete it for the reason I did and if not whether to start a new deletion discussion for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

As I'm just explaining to Geo Swan, I completely missed the AfD notice on the page which is why it didn't get a statement from me. I'm not sure how that happened, but I deleted it because it didn't assert importance/significance. I can restore it if you like and keep the AfD open? Consensus doesn't appear to be in that direction but I see no harm in it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've just read the entire AfD and those for the related articles. I see no problem per se; although they're undoubtedly linked, it's happened a few times when the biography is deleted but the related items stay open because they don't meet the speedy criteria. I've always secretly felt that there should be no issues with closing AfDs about albums of non-notable bands early early, because WP:IAR defeats strict protocol in my opinion, but I'm happy to leave the speedied article open until the fate of the albums is decided. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't realise that they were all being discussed on one page, hence the slight confusion. I've deleted them all now and left an addendum on the page, mentioning that the albums were deleted as non-notable. I knew they were all being considered but I assumed they were on separate pages for some reason. Anyway, apologies again, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] !

Stop Deleting My Stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tommy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fractional cascading

According to the description of the Fractional cascading example, a list M_i other than the last one is formed by merging L_i with every second item from M_i + 1. However, the included example does not agree with that: Note, for example, that M₃ contains both 3.5 and 4.6, which are successive elements in M₄. According to the description, the lists should be:

M₁ = 2.4[0, 1], 2.5[1, 1], 3.5[1, 3], 6.4[1, 5], 6.5[2, 5], 7.9[3, 5], 8[3, 6], 9.3[4, 6]

M₂ = 2.3[0, 1], 2.5[1, 1], 2.6[2, 1], 3.5[3, 1], 6.2[3, 3], 7.9[3, 5]

M₃ = 1.3[0, 1], 3.5[1, 1], 4.4[1, 2], 6.2[2, 3], 6.6[3, 3], 7.9[4, 3]

M₄ = 1.1[0, 0], 3.5[1, 0], 4.6[2, 0], 7.9[3, 0], 8.1[4, 0]

Note also that the description of the provided search example should be corrected as well. Finally, I do not understand in which case the first of the stored numbers in the merged list should result from searching for x in L_i+1 (i.e., the or clause in parentheses). Shouldn't that always be the location of x in L_i? Please verify so that the fr. casc. page can be revised accordingly. Lourakis (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry for the confusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Induced Homomorphism

Dear David,

There was some misunderstanding earlier with the page on the induced homomorphism and I admit I didn't understand why you reverted my edit. Now I do and I have split the page on induced homomorphism into two categories; Induced homomorphism (Algebraic topology) and [[Induced homomorphism (Category theory). In this case, there is no argument and I haven't changed the original page in anyway. However, if you think I have made a mistake, could you please tell me so I can fix it? Instead of deleting everything I wrote, I am ready to correct as many mistakes as necessary. I hope that there is no misunderstanding and that you agree with what I did. If not, then as I said, I would appreciate it if you told me beforehand. Once again, I am sorry for my previous misunderstanding.

Topology Expert (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)