User talk:David Eppstein#Access dates getting reformatted

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, 2024d 2025a, 2025b, 2025c

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.)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ralph Richardson (chancellor), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Richardson (chancellor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am wondering whether you can help out with Eritr's tag on Notability and CV for Roberto Navigli. I have been editing several pages of researchers (including this one), however this is an objective case for encyclopedic notability, as discussed in the talk page (in which Eritr did not participate). The page satisfies several notability criteria, but that user keeps reverting the Notability tag. Also, the Like resume tag is obsolete: as can be seen in the history, many changes have been made to the page in order to avoid lists of prizes and make the text plain. I just want to avoid a tag war, which is why I would like to avoid removing the tags (just to see that the tag is reverted...). Thanks for your help! Lauretana1975 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting Euclid on the main page! Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think he deserves it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be suitable for DYK? I had a bunch of open JSTOR tabs, and it all kind of gelled at once. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trick with mathematical DYKs is crafting a hook that is not just about mathematics so that it is of sufficiently broad interest. Often I don't bother. But for this one, "Apostol wrote the two-volume Calculus set because there was no existing textbook suitable for the students entering Caltech in the late 1950s." seems to have enough of a real-world beyond-mathematics connection. Maybe something like:

... that Tom Apostol wrote his book Calculus because he was unable to find any other text suitable for new Caltech students?

—David Eppstein (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a little more whimsical: ... that Caltech students called their calculus books "Tommy 1" and "Tommy 2"? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That works, maybe better. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You recently removed an entry I added to this sorting category, stating that List of minor planet discoverers is not a biography of a professor. That may technically be true. I want to point out though that this is a list of short biographies, which is currently the redirect target for 950 people, roughly half of whom are academics. When I added that sorting category, I believed that the potential deletion of those 950 redirects may be of interest. Renerpho (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard place to report them? This is the latest appearance. --JBL (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFPP maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 27 § Eponyms in mathematics round 2 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BlasterOfHouses (HouseBlaster's alt • talk • he/they) 19:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @David Eppstein, There is an ongoing AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Abolfazl Jaafari, and the consensus seems to be verging on deletion. But I think to the contrary since the author has 30 articles with 100+ citations each. They pass WP:AUTHOR #1 and WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #4 which to me sounds notable. Therefore do you mind sharing your opinion on this? Best. Xpander (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mr. Eppstein,

In the deletion log, I saw that you advised in favor of deleting my newly created article Heron's method on 28 October 2025. Could you please take a look at my undeletion request at User talk:ComplexRational#Request_for_undeletion_of_Heron's_method?

Regards, Marc Schroeder (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reply at User_talk:ComplexRational. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 11, Nos. 326, 327, 353, 354 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run: U, V, W | Asian women Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Women in Red's Asian women event is part of the global Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 campaign. You are welcome to add your contributions to both event pages. Tip of the Month: Verifiability is increasingly important as AI evolves. You should ensure that every statement made is adequately sourced. There should be no less than three independent reliable sources for each biography, including at least one source for each paragraph. Progress ("moving the needle"): Statistics available via various tools: previously, Humaniki tool; currently, QLever. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 20,473 articles created in the past year. 21 Oct 2024, 19.963% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,030,245 biographies; 405,305 women) 28 Oct 2025: 20.23% of biographies on EN-WP were about women (2,094,677 biographies; 423,778 women) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hello, David Eppstein. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conway and Sloane call the cube root of 2 the "Delian number" in The Book of Numbers (p. 193), but almost no one else has picked that term up, as far as I can tell. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page Radix Selection has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have checked the box to delete the redirect when I draftified it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need more than one source for adding topics related to biography, including political problems? I could barely add two sources for International Mathematical Olympiad#History in the latter, which were obtained from the biography article. Preferably, play it safe with a hot, ongoing topic, although the article is about GACR. By the way, I haven't edited the biographical or political articles, if I remember correctly.

Also, you have previously glanced quickly, taking neither a review nor a nomination, Representation theory of the Lorentz group? The length size, and the development section have got me surprised. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2025-31466-30 --JBL (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, blocked. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted my edits to Euclid number, citing WP:OR. What I did is the exact same thing that someone else did at Fermat number#Other theorems about Fermat numbers: no third-party sources, but only basic undergrad-level calculations, which I believe are exempted under WP:CALC. Numberguy6 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found an error in one of the proofs I added; I promise not to add any more of my own math work to Wikipedia (and you can topic-ban me if I do). But still, I want you to know that other users do this regularly, and you should check their work. Numberguy6 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot of cruft on Wikipedia to clean up. Thanks for the pointer to the unsourced material on Fermat number; I have removed some of it. (Some of that removal could be sourced but is repetitive of earlier content in the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to "Infinity symbol". I was unaware that there was any particular capitalization style to the article, and was correcting the references per MOS:TITLECAPS.

Additionally (as noted in my edit summary), I corrected the layout per MOS:ORDER. I placed the placed the reference templates' fields in the order in which they appear to aid future editing, italicized the title of the novel Ulysses, and performed other cleanup, at least some of which I would have thought was reasonably obvious from the history. —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I also fixed the quotation marks around "New Métis". —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counting, there are nineteen references of forty-seven in "Infinity symbol" which use sentence case, while the rest are in title case. Per WP:CITESTYLE this means that the usage is inconsistent, and ISTM that it should go to the majority. While I was unaware of the rule at the time, I was making changes in the spirit of WP:CITEVARYES. In view of that, may I please revert your changes to my version (retaining the corrected spelling of "Yable" of course)? —DocWatson42 (talk) DocWatson42 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found and fixed four. Not nineteen. Four. Sentence case for articles within journals and books. Title case for book and journal titles. As was already the majority style. But a lot of them are really cite web type documents for which the case is more variable. And I'm not entirely convinced that changing the punctuation of a title from its published version counts as "fixing".

So, no. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"New Métis" is in double quotation marks inside of double quotation marks, which I don't think anyone believes is a good idea. More later. —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey David - just wanted to say thank you for creating an article on Dr. Hoorfar. I was looking for her bio on the UVic website and discovered that there was a now a wikipedia bio on her. It's great to see women with strong track records in academia properly reflected on wikipedia. RedactedSagan (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

david eppstein is crying because temp accounts edittttttttttt ~2025-32097-30 (talk) 05:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit I'm stumped. Usually I have some idea of the context of troll edits here, but not this time. Organization for Transformative Works? Battle for Dream Island?? What edits have I made with any connection to those articles? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace the Dark Side! —Tamfang (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang. Star Wars reference? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes —Tamfang (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See, now, a month ago, I would have geolocated the IP address, and that might have given a clue, and even if it didn't it could have been used to narrow down other IP edits that might be related. But now I can't do that anymore, because temp accounts. Oh, I might be able to get permission to see IP addresses, but I'd have to promise not to use them for what I want to use them for. So...maybe a thin connection after all? --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it's a reference to David's frizzy hair and leather jacket, and his general propensity to start underground fights. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Use DMY}} - "The parameter |date= is intended to track the most recent month and year in which an editor checked the article for inconsistent date formatting" (my emphasis), which is what I did, and therefore the date gets updated to reflect that. GiantSnowman 18:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess. I kind of think using a script to change only that violates WP:COSMETICBOT, but whatever. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Intersection number (graph theory) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lp0 on fire -- Lp0 on fire (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not be aware, this was my first GA review. I would greatly appreciate any feedback of things I could do better next time. Thanks. lp0 on fire () 18:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Intersection number (graph theory) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Lp0 on fire -- Lp0 on fire (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red | November 2025, Vol 11, Issue 12, Nos. 326, 327, 355, 356, 357 Recognized as the most active topic-based WikiProject by human changes. Online events: New: Alphabet run X, Y, Z | Food and drink | Women who died in 2025 Continuing, year-long initiatives: #1day1woman | Music Announcements: Global Translat-a-thon 2025 06 December 2025 Tip of the Month: Lists of deaths by year is a good resource for the December / January meet-up Women who died in 2025 Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help wanted! Want to apply your skills or learn new ones? Help us plan monthly events, design event logos, come up with a tip-of-the-month, and/or provide any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, the reason I changed the style was because Ph.D. is normally connected to the United States. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean through sites like [1]? Ok. But in the same way the literally pointless removal of periods from all abbreviations is a distinctly UK-based style. And the article you did this on, Cristina Conati, has connections to Italy and Canada but only peripherally to the US and not at all to the UK. So you are violating WP:RETAIN, which says that when strong national ties do not push an article to one side or another you should leave it alone. And if you want a hint at which style Conati's employer uses, it appears to be a mix of both [2] [3] so there's no guidance there either. WP:RETAIN. Find something more useful to do than pushing one national style over another. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(: Draft:Otis Chodosh. Remember? Oracle!!!!!! MathKeduor7 (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, I trust your judgment: it seems my rational discernment is lowered... Should I take a wiki-break? Sincerely (all I do is for the Good of Wikipedia), MathKeduor7 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, WT:WPM#One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! is not promising. Maybe it would help to find a more relaxing way to contribute here than participating in forums, like slowly working through the backlog of [citation needed] tags in mathematics articles? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. MathKeduor7 (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It takes four or more hours to find a citation for something because someone was lazy and inserted "info" without source... Isn't it better to just remove and tell it at the talk page? (to avoid a lot of waste of editor's time!). MathKeduor7 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's incorrect or not appropriate for its article, removal can be a good option, but if it is valid content but missing a source, then it's better to either do the tedious effort of finding a source or leaving it in place with its citation needed tag in place.

Anyway, that's why I thought it might be more relaxing: hours of tedium searching for the right reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I am frustrated because I can't even find sources for obvious things that "everyone knows": see, for ex., Cylinder and Trigonometric functions. :( —MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious things are often the hardest to source. Sometimes I find late 19th century and early 20th century textbooks on archive.org to be good for those. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for teaching me the technique of supplying citations! I'll try to master it. ^^ MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"He also started to become increasingly occupied with Formulario to the detriment of his other work.^{[citation needed]}" from Giuseppe Peano... The best reference I could find that says more or less that is https://kids.kiddle.co/Giuseppe_Peano , that doesn't look like very reliable... :( MathKeduor7 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have to watch out for other sites that copied material from Wikipedia. That could easily be one of those. They are not usable as sources because WP:CIRCULAR. Even when citing recent scholarly publications this can be a problem. That's one reason I like to look for sources published earlier than around 2005, when possible. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Computer algebraic system, in [4], are the chairmans considered as the conference's editors? Not quite good at biography, by the way. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, for the program chair, I think not the general chair. Occasionally the proceedings editors are a separate role and not the same people as the program chair or chairs. In this case at least it looks like DBLP lists them as editors: [5]. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title. I can't sleep. I can't develop this draft anymore. Please, could you finish it? I know it would take you just 40 minutes. MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. Btw, how did he got 0 on p3??????????? [6] He solved others much harder. He could easily had gotten a GOLD MEDAL. MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For showing what a true WP admin is (a lot of work in the main space etc...). MathKeduor7 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!!! MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Darling. Title. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual ofc. MathKeduor7 (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have made many preparations for GA, you won't mind if I ask you to put the Regular icosahedron in your pool? I have failed once. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it's in better shape than I expected. Maybe. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll leave it to you. Meanwhile, I could only do the minor edits, which probably some improvement or additional informations, like its property being a 2-blowup graph [7]; I don't know whether this can be potentially COI or not.

		The Polyhedron Barnstar
		By the way, here's the barnstar, and I have no idea whether it is suitable for you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blowup itself: It has a decomposition into two outerpaths from which one can show that the 2-blowup of the icosahedron is biplanar. Probably not WP:DUE for the article. Anyway, cool barnstar, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a blowup graph article, do we? Not the blow-up lemma? And for the barnstar, thanks, but someone already made it up, not me. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title should be blowup of a graph and I don't think we have an article on that topic. The blow-up lemma does involve blowups of graphs but is a distinct enough topic that it should be a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot. If you start to planning on it. I can give the sources about the information at that time I had worked on it.

• Virus: many viruses; origins of virus structure and icosahedron relations impacting on crystallographic methodology and molecular biology: [8], "Bernal and Fankuchen ... studies of a spherical plant virus, Tomato bushy stunt virus (TBSV). ... icosahedron has 60 symmetrically identical positions, there must be 60 identical building blocks in the virus."
• Symmetry: alternating group of five letter ${\displaystyle A_{5}}$ relations [9]
• Spherical icosahedron: claiming according to the talk page, merging Dymaxion map and including Riemann sphere.[10]
• More miscellaneous figures: 600-cell, 120-cell, E₈, the Leech lattice, etc. More analogs in other dimensions.
• More measurements: diagonals, angles between edges, and angles subtended by edges.
• Tensegrity: [11]
• Optimal packing: [12]

Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to put "–" before signature (automatically)? I've tried in a lot of different ways, but none works. Please, could you help me on this one? MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Preferences / User profile / Signature —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! MathKeduor7 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title. Why mirrors "reverse" [[[right and left]]], but not [[[up and down]]]? There is a plethora of sources to this old question but no article on EN-WP... Google Gemini says: "[...] our brains interpret this depth reversal as a horizontal flip because we imagine the reflection as another person facing us [...]". Thanks. I'm in mania... Help ok pleaseeee? :))) MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requests (they are all related!!!): cylindrical mirror and square circle (philosophy). MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im in mania, sorry. I'll try to find references to unsourced claims..... Boring but therapeutic. MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and Last but not least: can you help me to get mania to GA status? MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I need to sleep 15 hours straight with no interruptions to return to eutymia (dunno the word in English); see ya. MathKeduor7 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least point you to a link for one of your redlinks: the philosophy one can be found at round square copula. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll see what I can do when I do get better! :) MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @MathKeduor7: for Greek-derived words that were spelt with θ, the English spelling has th; for the psychiatric sense of the word there’s an article at Euthymia.—Odysseus1479 06:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I did not know that! MathKeduor7 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I learned a new word today. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I learned a new meaning for it: I had known it only as Euthymia (philosophy) before.—Odysseus1479 07:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see this page created, but was disheartened by your edit summary and don't know why that was necessary to say. I had stepped away from the draft after I started it with three perfectly suitable sources for the two sentences it contained. You have retained two of these sources, and simply swapped the other for a different APS page specific beyond the archive. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it was important for the article history to clarify that this version was not derived from the draft, just as it would have been important for the article history to credit you for past versions if it had been derived from the draft. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something you want to comment on about the drawing, since you are good at it? Missing structure? I don't want to delete this image just because I used Inkscape to connect the edges and cover the orange surface. I have put it in the article Goldner–Harary graph. By the way, I don't mind if you want me to change the color, a personal color that I chose since we have too many green colors. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am thinking of Frucht graph and any other polyhedral graph needs an image for polyhedra. But do we need sources for that? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as an image just illustrates what's in the text of an article, it doesn't generally need sources. In this case, the claim that I imagine would be illustrated is that the Frucht graph is a polyhedral graph. This is already present in the text of the article and already properly sourced by the MathWorld Halin graph source: that source says both that the Frucht graph is a Halin graph and that every Halin graph is polyhedral, so we are not synthesizing information from multiple sources. Because this claim is in the article text with a source, I don't think we need an additional source for an illustration. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have added the image. Then I guess my questioning about Bidiakis cube as a convex polyhedron, namely gabled rhombohedron, already answered but still vague about sourcing problem. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone use your work on File:Triaugmented triangular prism (symmetric view).svg to do anything according to the Commons Creative Zero CC0? I carefully read about the conditions before tracing the geometric object image for drawing related objects. I think I use a similar image File:Noperthedron render.png with a similar reasoning. Since I know that CC 4.0 describes "public domain with recognition", how do I convert my images from CC 4.0 to CC0? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC0 means do what you want with it, I don't care. And you're confusing two different numbers. The 4.0 is a version number but the 0 is the type of license. Anyway, if you want to change the license to a more permissive one, go to the image page on Wikimedia commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kleetope_of_a_triangular_bipyramid.svg), and edit the "Licensing" section to say {{self|cc-zero}} instead of what it says now, {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But is it more appropriate to provide the original source and its author, for any type of Creative Commons Zero? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) For what might be considered academic purposes I think it’s always best to cite the pertinent sources. It’s also more courteous, FWIW. But there’s no legal reason to do so; there are no intellectual-property rights to infringe. OTOH the “BY” in a CC BY-SA licence (whatever the version number) requires the original author to be credited in derivative works.—Odysseus1479 02:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dijkstra%27s_algorithm&curid=45809&diff=1327773215&oldid=1327406697

Sorry, did you mean to take out the stuff at the bottom? They were filled in and not spam. The Springer links?

I'm just asking about the lower half, not the upper. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the Tetelbaum spam that I intended to remove. Sometimes the easiest way to do this was to go back to a recent version before the spam. But in this case I have redone the removal by only taking out the affected section and not the updates to other references. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might say... like taking the shortest path.

Sorry, I'll see myself out efficiently. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:01, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my mind becomes feeble and I became bad wiith math foormulattions. Can you take a look at the article Unigraph I wrote up a couple days ago? --Altenmann >talk 20:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Dowth, a neolithic passage tomb in Ireland is my Wiki-Solstice card to all for this year. ("During the winter solstice, the light of the low sun moves along the left side of the passage, then into the circular chamber, where three stones are lit up by the sun. The convex central stone reflects the sunlight in to a dark recess, lighting up the decorated stones there.") --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. By the way, is there a secondary source for dihedral angles and symmetry of Triaugmented triangular prism? I recalled from WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Am I missing something? I need to promote Biaugmented triangular prism and Augmented triangular prism soon, but I could not find secondary sources for explaining ${\displaystyle C_{2v}}$ symmetry. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the source gives the angles in DMS and we give them in decimal degrees? That's WP:CALC, not an interpretation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. But what about the three-dimensional symmetry group? I know that the journal source provides it as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a journal publication saying so, I don't think the distinction between primary and secondary is particularly important here. It's a point of mathematical fact, not of interpretation. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So explaining its three-dimensional symmetry group of a Johnson solid is fine? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a journal source naming the group —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. By the way, You won't mind if I ask some related things about sourcing. Have you seen some sources about bipyramids and Steinitz's theorem? Couldn't find any single of them, which I have to promote Pentagonal bipyramid soon as well. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a graph this is called the "double wheel". It's described as a polyhedral graph in Sano's "The distinguishing chromatic numbers of triangulations on the sphere" (2011) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have finally found what I needed for a whole time. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]