Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:57, 24 April 2013

Archives

2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d 2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d

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.

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exponential time hypothesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double exponential (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Binary number

Dear David, I have just moved Binary numeral system to Binary number per the RM discussion on the talk page. Now it's up to you and your fellow participants to tweak the wording in the lead appropriately. Best, Drmies (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CoDi see also links

Hey there. I saw that you were also removing the spammy links to that new article. Do you think there are any pages that should keep that beside the main CA page? There are about half a dozen left in neural network type articles. —Torchiest _edits 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to leave the neural network ones and the main CA article one. I just didn't think it had any relevance to other specific CA rules and to traffic models. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree. Those last few work for me then. Thanks. —Torchiest _edits 16:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Double wedge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom Hassan connection to NH Governor

Hi Mr. Eppstein, I put a note in the Thomas Hassan Talk page but I thought I'd put it here too...

Mr. Hassan lives with his wife, the governor of NH. She was inaugurated on 3 Jan 13. This is not a trivial connection. I believe that she should be named and linked in this article.

Thoughts?

Best,

Friedlad (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I see, you edited the info box on the right side of the page. Is it non-standard to repeat this in the body text of the article? Obviously I missed the connection and (I guess obviously) feel that it is an important fact here that the governor of NH lives on the PEA campus with their family...

Friedlad (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All the versions of Thomas Hassan that I have seen or edited have had his wife's name and office in the first sentence. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Triangular_number#An_elegant_property

I have posted a proof at the talk page, in which you commented and might be interested as well, which I think we should add it in the article as we have a proof which is correct. 117.227.200.134 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering

The article Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Contrary to what article claims, not included in Science Citation Index (see Thomson Reuters Master Journal List). PubMed indexing trivial (via PubMed Central as an OA journal). Not included in any selective database, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree this should not have a full article and have turned it back into a redirect. Unfortunately a prod is inappropriate as it was already prodded once before in 2010. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible COI?

Hi David. I've been working on cellular automaton extensively, and noticed yesterday a bit of new text was added by User:Wli625. Based on their contributions, it's pretty obvious this is Wentian Li. Pretty much every single edit made by this account is adding references to papers written by Wentian Li. There was a lot of that done back in 2008, then a multi-year break, then a recent burst of new activity, including the creation of an article for Wentian Li. Is this kind of thing okay? I'm still a little hazy on COI issues, and I'm also not sure the article passes WP:GNG. Any advice or suggestions you have would be appreciated. I'll watchlist this talk page. Cheers. —Torchiest _edits 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not ok to create an article on yourself. As for adding one's own research contributions to articles: I've done it myself (most recently in 1-planar graph), but I think the rule is that if any other editor reasonably disagrees with the addition then it should be removed (i.e. the person with the conflict of interest has an automatically weaker position in any edit dispute). I'll take a look at these particular additions and see whether something needs to be done in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Li appears to pass multiple criteria of WP:PROF so I am reluctant to try to get the article on him deleted despite its apparent COI origin. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I suppose there's a bit of a difference between adding links to your online web store versus your online research, although I could see it as an indirect way to promote yourself for eventual financial gain, say, in the form of research grants.—Torchiest _edits 21:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Li and I created/edited a few pages recently because I just became an editor

of a journal and found that wiki didn't have any information on the journal, even though it is published by a major publisher (Elsevier). That was why i added a page for the journal. Then I thought it would be good to add a page for myself because if potential authors know my background, they might be more comfortably submitting their papers to this journal. I wasn't thinking about promotion, only thinking about making information available. In this process, I became curious about what wiki pages say about topics which I wrote papers on. And found that some results which I think interesting are not included. I have added some materials and refer to my own publications. Is that COI? But who knows more about a topic than the authors themselves? We don't have unlimited time in our hand, and we only add pieces of information that we are most familiar with. Collectively, these pieces of information would make a wiki page more comprehensive. Again, it is not for promotion purpose. That's my opinion and I would like to hear other's comments. The other thought on "creating a page on oneself": is it OK for the person's colleague to create that page? What about his/her friends? students? children? relatives? ... (User:Wli625).

Preferably, none of the above: see WP:AUTOBIO. Your expertise is certainly welcome here but it would carry less of an appearance of COI and self-promotion if a larger fraction of your edits were not the addition of references to your own papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(*on large fraction of my edits being reference to my own papers) It is mainly a time issue.

If I had a lot of time, I could edit other pages. For my own work, I could immediately see what's missing from a wiki page and what could be improved. Maybe what I will do in the future is to try to get 50% fraction: whenever I edit one page related to my work, I would try to edit another page unrelated. (*on creating a page on oneself) It would be interesting to have some statistics on the relationship between the writer(s) who created/edited a person's page and that person, stratified by fields, age, etc. Denote k=0 as self, k=1 as anyone who knew/met/related/being friend/co-authored/.. that person, k=2 is friend-of-friend... etc. Mostly k<=6 (six degrees of separation). I would guess such a distribution could peak at k=1. I would also want to see a definition of COI based on k. (*one rule_110) That page is mainly from a computer science's perspective. I thought a perspective from the dynamical systems is missing. So when I get a chance, I will again bring in some sentences from a dynamical systems' point of view, after I survey the literature more carefully (instead of just quoting my paper only). (User:Wli625)

Re rule 110: yes, please do try to make the article more balanced. I think that one was mostly the work of others but I know in my own editing on CA articles I'm likely to overemphasize the computer science perspective, for obvious reasons. As for splitting your editing between your own work and others': yes, that seems appropriate. It is only natural that you edit on the subjects where you have the most expertise, but I'm sure your work has led you to know some topics well that you haven't yet published in yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

IDEF

Hi David, could you comment on this discussion. It seems a new user has created a lot of work altering those article titles without any previous discussion etc. -- Mdd (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Light Painting

I'm a international known Light Artist with clients like Canon, Coldplay, Nike, Diesel, Japan Tobacco. i'm a athour and teacher about light art. please take a look in goolge before you edit me again.

cheers janleonardo

You also have all the appearance of a self-promoting spammer. Please see WP:COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

no: the information in the text part "Techniques" wasn't right! FIRST: I'm the founder and the creator of the Light Art technique: LAPP You can reading this all over in the net. i give information's for peaple they are interested in Light Art. JanLeonardo (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Please see WP:3RRNB. Deltahedron (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct use of the term "linear"

For one thing, it's what one tries to construct when one does linear regression. See for instance Linear predictor function, which has a link to the wrong kind of linear function in its lead. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, David, you're wrong. You're making the usual clumsy mistake of thinking that the reason why linear regression is called linear is that one is fitting a line. But if you fit a parabola by least squares, that's still linear regression. And the reason for calling it that makes sense. Nonlinear regression is something else. The article on linear predictor functions has the right link. You're neglecting the fact that a column whose every entry is the number 1 may be one of the predictors, so you're taking a linear combination of that and the others. See this question and its answers. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You walked obliviously into a standard trap in which freshmen get caught. Linear regression is linear regardless of whether one is fitting a line or any of many sorts of curve. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahmes

Hello David. I just came across your comment on the Ahmes talk page and though written two years ago I think there is something left to say. While in agreement with much of what you say, it seems to me that there is still room for poor Ahmes. First of all, because his is probably one of the best-known Ancient Egyptian names, if only because the Rhind papyrus was for so long called the Ahmes papyrus or calculation book etc. Secondly, because a redirect to Rhind papyrus lands the reader on a page in which Ahmes is completely submerged and so Milo Gardner-ized that the reader will learn nothing useful. Indeed the whole Rhind papyrus page is in rather bad shape. As for what should be put on the Ahmes page (and what is this "more accurately Ahmose" thing? Since when does a late Greek transcription take precedence over a form much closer to the actual Jˁḥ-ms, conventionally vocalized Yahmes by modern Egyptologists?) there are two things I think that one can say: 1° that he copied an older mathematical problem collection and 2° that he was a professional scribe. (We also have his signature at the end of the colophone). Given the bad state of the Rhind papyrus page and the small and, I find, not very informative section on Egyptian scribes in the scribe article, I think one migh do something useful under Ahmes' name.--NfrHtp (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "more accurately" part may be leftover cruft from Milo Gardner (an enthusiastic amateur Egyptologist who has contributed here, and made a mess of several articles). If you think there is more to say on the article, and can find the appropriate references to back it up, please do go ahead and improve it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I unfortunately have come across Milo Gardner's work elsewhere and seen the damage done. My idea was to see if one couldn't say a few words about the 2 allied topics, Rhind papyrus and Egyptian scribe, on the Ahmes page, since what we know about him is restricted to what he himself says in the colophone (one sentence long and which might be put here as well), i.e., his name - Jˁḥ-ms, profession - scribe, and the fact that he copied the text from an older original. This would, say, double the current length (before stripping off the Gardner excrescences).--NfrHtp (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DAGs etc.

Thanks for your comments as I pondered the wiki's wording of the longest-path solution to transitive reduction of DAGs. The original question that brought me here was (as vaguely stated here as it is in my mind), "does an electrical circuit interpretation of the Hasse diagram of a poset induce a nice linearisation?". Do you happen to know of any results on posets realised as electrical circuits? My Googling came up short and, as I just crossed paths with an expert, well ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.199.72 (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not offhand, sorry. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catalin Barboianu

You might want to refactor your last !vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Catalin Barboianu as you had previously provided an opinion of "delete" in the same discussion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments on Graph theory articles

Hi David,

In case you have missed it, I have made suggestions and asked questions on these pages : Talk:Möbius ladder‎ (one item) and Talk:Tournament (graph theory)‎ (five items).

If it was intentional not to answer, please just ignore this message.

Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Rado graph

David,

I did not "interpolate" a "set-theoretic definition" just for the fun of it. But as you must know, some people use the definition that a graph can have loops (from a vertex to itself) or parallel edges (multiple edges between the same two vertices) or both.

To be unambiguous I used precisely the definition of Rado graph that Rado uses in his paper introducing it.

Your wording of "(in the case x < y)" . . . "(in the case y < x)" is both superfluous and downright confusing, since for any edge xy in Rado's terms, one must have x <> y and hence WLOG x < y is sufficient to define the graph. Even if you insist on using your redundant definition, it could be worded much more clearly.

And I can't for the life of me imagine any justification for your removing my additional example of what the neighbors are of vertex 2. Unless you were just unhappy that anyone could conceive of altering your words.Daqu (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I think that the desire to eliminate all possible ambiguities is not helpful to the cause of making our articles readable. This is one of those times. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one trying to eliminate all possible ambiguities — or whatever your twisted motivation may be — by giving a two-case definition of the Rado graph when only a single case is needed. I simply used the identical definition to what's in Rado's paper. And that includes stating his definition of graph without which the properties of the Rado graph cannot be understood.

And you are totally silent on why you deleted my example of the neighbors of vertex 2.

It appears that as long as you wrote it, it's OK — and otherwise, not — clarity be damned. Daqu (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see why you think you need to define what a graph is in general, when the vertices and edges of this graph are already clearly defined. But I did just reword it to avoid two cases by assuming wlog x < y as you suggest. As for the rest of your rhetoric, please see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wilson

I commend the spirit and a lot of the ingredients of this set of edits, but some of it worries me.

I hadn't heard of the photographer till yesterday or the day before, but it seems that she worked for a long time with/for Avedon, and then she immersed herself in one project after another (possibly with some overlaps). But now the article lacks any narrative at all -- there's book 1, book 2, book 3, book 4, and then exhibition after exhibition -- and little chance of one being developed by somebody who's luckier than me and has more source materials, unless that editor undoes quite a bit of your recent work.

Compare the article on Homer Sykes, who's also done one thing after another, these being accompanied by books: the article presents a narrative that sometimes mentions the books and exhibitions, but the nitty-gritty about the latter is relegated to lists that come below. This is a commoner way to construct the bios of roughly comparable photographers, and I think it's a better one -- which isn't to say that it's always the best (or that the article on Sykes is much good). -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that telling stories is better for longer biographies. In this case I didn't think we really had the material for it, though — we have some reviews of her output, but we don't have a lot of reliable third-party sources describing what she went through to get that output. If you can find them, please go ahead and put the article into more of a prose format and less of a bare-bones list, but it needs to avoid the uninformative puffery and unsourced assertions of the pre-AfD version of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sources and time permitting, I'll try. (Don't hold your breath.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Inverse (program)

Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability. The tag's still there 5 years later; you could take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD, or make it a redirect, or remove the tag if you are no longer concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ostomachion

Slashme, in August, 2012, deleted a passage from Ostomachion on the grounds that it missed the point, but did not indicate what the point missed might be. It is not clear, from his qualifications and expertise, whether Slashme has any special expertise in enumerative combinatorics. On the other hand, David Eppsten, who has also engaged recently in editing this entry, certainly does. So, I should like to remind both Users of the passage in question in seeking their consent to restoring the passage, perhaps with some further comment:

So, there are at least four different answers that we might give just considering Suter's proposal. Clearly, to count, you have to know what counts. When, as here, the number of outcomes is so sensitive to the assumptions made, it helps to state them explicitly. Put another way, combinatorics can help sharpen our awareness of tacit assumptions. If, say, answers like 4 or 64 are unacceptable for some reason, we have to re-examine our presumptions, possibly questioning whether Suter's pieces can be turned over in reforming their square. As emerges below, there is also some objection to Suter's proposal which would render this combinatorial discussion of the Suter board academic.

As it seems to me, the point the writer intends is that a problem in enumerative combinatorics has to be well-posed in order for it to be possible to answer it and that wide variation in potential answers is an indication that the problem has not been well posed. What is missing here is the further observation that Netz, in the referenced book with Noel, just jumps into his conjecture that Archimedes was doing high-level enumerative combinatorics leading to a large number, which is then confirmed by producing a suitable large number, but without any discussion of the underlying assumptions need to produce that large number. Two possible reasons for this reticence occur to me: (i) the writer wished to avoid being unduly adversarial; and (ii) the writer considered Netz' adoption of the (flawed) Suter Board, again without discussion why this Board is privileged over that emerging from the Archimedes Codex, a more serious obstacle.

So, I propose for your consideration and, as I hope, approval restoration of the deleted passage, with the further observation of how it relates to Netz' presentation in his book with Noel.

Now, also missing in the entry is discussion of Netz more scholarly discussion, jointly with Fabio Acerbi and N. G. Wilson, that came out in SCIAMVS in 2004:

• Towards a reconstruction of Archimedes' Stomachion, SCIAMVS, 5 (2004), 67-97.

The account here is decidely lower key than the earlier book and, if anything, supports the thrust of the Wiki entry in faulting the account in the book. In the first place, we see, not the Suter Board, but the outlines of a board that is two squares side by side, just as Heiberg had suggested (although in the book, Netz takes Heiberg to task for neglecting figures). Secondly, following the discussion in footnotes referring to Suter, the article recognises Suter's own admission of the provisional nature of his reconstruction (but not the typo in fn 6, where Suter has AD = DB, where presumably AD = AB is intended, not Suter's later conncession that, in the unpointed Arabic of his text, twice and equals are easily confused, not that Suter recognizes that this opens the possibility that the sides might be related as AD = 2AB, as seen in the Archimedes Codex). Thirdly, the authors have studied Hedberg and Suter sufficiently thoroughly to be able to say where Hedberg diverges from Suter. Fourthly, the authors even have reference to the note on Lucretius in 1956 by H. J. Rose from which they could have been led, by equally close reading, to Oldham's letter to Nature in 1926, although, particularly for a senior classicist, such as N. G. Wilson, Rose's standard Handbook of 1934, would be the more obvious source of acquaintance with Oldham's letter. For further reference here, we can consult Suter's article of 1899:

• Der Lochulus Archimedius ....

Comparison of book and paper does invite question about Netz' approach to scholarship? As it happens, an extended answer has been given by Netz' co-author, Fabio Acerbi, whose own work delving into Ancient Greek enumerative combinatorics seems, by Netz' own account, to have been an inspiration for Netz to emulate and equal.

• Archimedes and the Angel: Phantom Paths from Problems to Equations, Aestimatio, 2 (2005), 169--226; see esp. 178--179.

The pointis not even whether Netz' approach should be labeled as history of mathematics, or whether, more likely, he is inventing a new genre ... Netz' book simply raises problems of methods: ...

Netz' earlier showmanship in publicizing his conjecture on Archimedes' Stomachion, namely that it was an exercise in high-level enumerative combinatorics, was sprung on a less suspecting audience.

So, with all due respect to your expertise and judgement, I should also like to add these references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.100 (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to find no rejoinder, as I observe that you are usually only to keen to police original research. The difficulty with the entry Ostomachion as far as it has concerned the referenced book by Netz and Noel is that it certainly is a published source, so discussion of it might indeed read like commentary. Justaposing Netz' scholarly paper with Acerbi and Wilson would seem to help overcome the objection of OR, still flagged up in the entry.

Basically the article as it stands now is a complete mess of original research that needs burning to the ground and rebuilding from scratch. But the deleted passage is significantly worse than what's there already, primarily in being heavily editorial (promoting an opinion, exhorting people to think in a certain way about the problem) rather than factual. And my contributions towards editing this article have been extremely minor, so I don't feel that I have a stake in fixing it; I do care about our mathematics articles in general, but this one is only one of a huge number of mathematics articles with problems, many of which I have a greater concern for than this one, and far too many for me to deal with on my own. So: I don't appreciate being told what to do, I agree that this article is a problem, I don't agree that you are helping fix the problem, I don't agree that this is the most urgent problem currently calling for my attention, and I may or may not get to this sometime in the future when I feel like it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Aliquot

I noticed that you reverted my changes to Aliquot yet we have no article which explains what an aliquot is. The links within the lines of the disambig version simply point to vaguely related articles such as Chemistry which helps not one whit if you happen to be a chemistry student looking to find what and aliquot part actually is. Currently it is most unsatisfactory. If you don't like my version, what do you suggest?  Velella    18:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Which kind of aliquot do you want to have an article on? You should write a domain-specific article on that one. E.g. create aliquot part (chemistry), with sourcing to chemistry textbooks, defining aliquot parts in that context and explaining how to create them and what they're used for. See Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary: disambiguation pages are different, but actual articles need to be on a single topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Graph-tool article

You had proposed the deletion of the Graph-tool article. Since then the article has been updated to include several academic references, as mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Graph-tool. Would you care to address this and review your position? executive_override (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'd rather let the AfD play out and see what other editors think of the improvements. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, things seem to be lingering there. Since you proposed the deletion in the first place, I think it would be useful to know what you think of the modifications. executive_override (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Graph power

On 4 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Graph power, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the square of a graph, all vertices with a distance of no more than two in the original graph are adjacent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Graph power. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Phillip lloyd Powell

No delete log for furniture designer Phillip Lloyd Powell delete 5 June 2008 By Dvid Eppstein. Reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.166.171 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason given in the delete log that I see for that article is "db-nn", i.e. WP:CSD#A7. It was tagged as non-notable by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs), The entire text of the article was "Philip Lloyd Powell was a American furniture designer, sculptor, and artist, who is famous for his contributions to the American furniture design." There were no sources to make this claim credible. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re:La Reyne le veult DYK

I've responded to your concerns on the La Reyne le veult DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And found a ref. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And changed the wording. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A matter which took me only four seconds to fix (serious)

Re: Armless freak

Done. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Independent review needed

Dear David_Eppstein, if you get a chance, can you please independently take a look at the deletion of Mediox ]. I will modify the article in any way possible just to preserve the invention of the multimedia fast food tray. MDEngineer (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Oops. sincere apologies for adding the message to the top of the list. MDEngineer (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ordered Bell number

On 16 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ordered Bell number, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that because of the possibility of dead heats, the number of possible outcomes of a horse race is not a factorial, but an ordered Bell number? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ordered Bell number. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Allen Whitworth

On 18 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Allen Whitworth, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that William Allen Whitworth was the first mathematician to publish Bertrand's ballot theorem, one of many misnamed mathematical theorems? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Allen Whitworth. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Harrias 16:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Paging Dr. Eppstein

Is it just me, or are the inmates on the verge of taking over the asylum? Honestly, where did all these handwringing naysayers come from? EEng (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No article on the dimension of a graph

Hi David,

I noticed English Misplaced Pages has articles on the metric dimension of a graph, or on the biclique dimension of a graph, but nothing on the notion described in Erd ̋os, P., Harary, F. and Tutte, W. T., On the dimension of a graph, Mathematika 12, 1965, pages 118–122.

They define it as the minimum number ${\displaystyle n}$ such that a graph ${\displaystyle G}$ can be embedded in the n-dimensional Euclidean space ${\displaystyle E^{n}}$ with every edge of ${\displaystyle G}$ being a segment of length 1.

Is the lack of an article on this topic intentional? The closest thing I have been able to find was the notion of dimension of a simplex, which is the geometrical equivalent in the special case of the complete graphs.

Best, --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not an intentional omission, but it is mentioned in Unit distance graph#Generalization to higher dimensions.

OK, missed that one, thanks. And would it be worth an article, according to you? Alexander Soifer dedicates a whole chapter to that in his 2009 book "The Mathematical Coloring Book" (Springer). --MathsPoetry (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like plenty of material for an article. You could call it Euclidean dimension, maybe? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will write it (in French Wikipédia), starting on tomorrow. I indeed have a lot of matter for it.

My first intention was also to call it "Euclidian dimension" to distinguish it from "metric dimension' or "bipartite dimension", but:

• it would be "own work" of mine
• worse, Soifer introduces "Euclidian dimension" for a slightly different concept (which other people call "faithful dimension"), and which I intend to describe on the same page.

So I think it will simply be "graph dimension" or "dimension (graph theory)". I agree it is suboptimal and it also bothers me. --MathsPoetry (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see fr:Dimension (théorie des graphes). I tried to remain entry-level, and to focus on the most important aspects. Feel free to reuse the images I had to create to illustrate this article. --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have started to translate it into English, my work-in-progress is at User:Maproom/Dimension_(graph_theory). Maproom (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The French article uses templates with the names "démonstration" and "Théorème". If en:Misplaced Pages has equivalent templates (which seem to me an excellent device) I have failed to find them. What would you advise? My attempt to use {{Proof|state=collapsed}} did not have the result I had hoped for :-)

Template:Math proof Error caused by a symbol in proof: use proof parameter

Maproom (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

context

See this edit. I've met people who don't recognize that word at all. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about writing it that way. However some editors (not me) would insist on reversing that edit, claiming that it's redundant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hypercube page edits, hypercube elements

Hello David,

I have recently made a large amount of additions to the Hypercube Misplaced Pages page, and I have noticed that you have deleted the vast majority of them. Most of what I have posted are original findings, which you have dismissed as 'nonstandard terminology' and deleted. What would be the best way for me to add my original findings to Misplaced Pages? I am currently in the process of submitting my findings to the appropriate University of Arizona mathematics database to have my findings confirmed/verified.

Until my findings are published, I will undo all of the edits that I have made regarding my original findings. However, I am leaving my changes under the Construction subsection of the article because integration is the mathematically correct term to describe what is happening, as opposed to "moving".

Anion24 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have asked Anion24 to open a discussion at the article talk page on the use of the term integration in this context, which seems completely non-standard. Deltahedron (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

To Anion24: please stop trying to restore your reverted edits, and discuss them on the article talk page instead. This appears to be original research to me. Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your "original findings". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Klein graph

I have recently created an article Klein graph – and then realised that some sources, including Wolfram MathWorld, use the term "Klein graph" for the dual graph of the one I have written about, while other sources like this one use it the same way as I do. My attempts to use Google to check which "Klein graph" (and worse, the related "Klein map") is more standard are difficult for me, as some of its hits are to stuff I have created myself. So I would appreciate your advice. Should one article cover both the {7,3} and the {3,7} map? or should they have different articles, and if so what should these be called? Maproom (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for the 3-regular graph, just because we have much better coverage in general of that kind of graph (see cubic graph and Foster census). But if there's a preponderance of sources that go the other way, then that's the way you should go. As for the Klein map, doesn't the Klein quartic article cover that well enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice to hear about this new article. If you don't mind, I'll translate it to French.

I have adopted the following layout on the French Misplaced Pages:

• fr:Graphe de Klein = disambiguation page
• fr:24-graphe de Klein for the 7-regular one ; we already had an article for this one
• fr:56-graphe de Klein for the 3-regular one

This layout, based on the number of vertices, matches the conventions on the French Misplaced Pages, but might not work out well here. I don't know. --MathsPoetry (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

(conversation continued on Maproom's discussion page to avoir cluttering here) --MathsPoetry (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Circular layout

On 30 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Circular layout, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that circular layouts, in which the nodes of a graph are drawn on a circle, have been used to visualize the cyclic parts of metabolic networks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Circular layout. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd 08:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Gleason

Thanks for the work on this article. I still say to myself when I am depressed and find myself forced to listen to pompous and tiresome people "Well, I have known something you have never known, and that is the pleasure of dining and conversing with Gleason hundreds of times over many years, on something like equal terms, and to have been his friend."

I never got around to asking him what exactly he was doing in Berkeley. If you know, can you clarify that in the article?

EEng (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the book I used doesn't say why, it just says his family lived there for a semester, in spring 1936. He also tells a story from that time of regularly taking a trolley to the Chabot Observatory, and at some point buying a telescope to stargaze, but then back in Bronxville only being able to do so when it was too cold for comfort, and giving it up for that reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's good enough, actually. Please keep an eye on my further edits (which may or may not be substantial in the immediate future, depending...) and, if you are amenable let's prod each other to further efforts periodically. I'm guessing from your CV that you probably never met him, but as you must have gathered he was a just plain extraordinary person as well as an extraordinary mathematician, and he deserves a much better article. Notice I've started citing the AMS appreciation, which is wonderful. EEng (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What the article is really missing is a discussion of his mathematical accomplishments. If we can cover that part, with about the same amount of text as the biographical material, and within a few days, we might be able to meet the 5x expansion requirements for WP:DYK. (It needs to be a 5x expansion of the prose of the article, not counting lists (like the previous list of publications) but also not counting block quotes.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Never thought of DYK -- isn't there a timespan within which the expansion must be completed? Hmmm.. what would be the fun fact -- his continuing cipher and security work no one knew abuot? The no-PhD bit (though that isn't, or at least wasn't, completely unheard of)? Wait... lots more is coming to mind. Oh goody. Let's do it!

But if it's gonna get main-page exposure the bio needs to be really tops. You mentioned his research as needing fleshing out but there are at least three areas that IMO we should be sure to cover /well/:

1. research (as you mentioned)
2. teaching (both his own + leadership in reforming/improving math teaching -- for a few years he spent one day a week with grade school kids trying out different ways of presenting concepts, and hearing how kids think about math and struggle through problems -- that might be a good DYK too)
3. cipher work

This leaves out service to Harvard and learned societies, no doubt much Society of Fellows stuff, any number of worthwhile anecdotes (e.g. personally guarding (with other trusted faculty) Widener Library for several nights after a firebomb threat in the 60s -- I had that story from him but haven't run into it in sources yet; guessing the combination to an officer's safe when he was in the Navy; etc.) -- these and more (in yet other categories) are harder to source so we can only do our best.

Hope you don't fear I'm turning this into a giant project but I do hope we can do him justice. Since I'm in CS/Stat, not hard math, if you'll take the lead on his research I'll be happy to take the lead on the rest.

EEng (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I figured you'd recognize the Hardy allusion in my first post above, but on the off chance you don't please follow the link so you won't think I'm strange.

It's a pretty short deadline: five days from the start of expansion on April 3. DYK also has somewhat strict standards for sourcing: every paragraph (outside the lead section) needs at least one footnote. And unfortunately the timing is inconvenient for me: I'm traveling starting April 6, and likely to be incommunicado from the morning of the 6th (Pacific time) until the evening of the 7th (European central time). My own mathematical interests are separate enough that understanding his contributions is going to take some effort — Ramsey theory I understand well, but not so much the rest. But I'll see if I can find some time to work on it. As for Hardy, I didn't actually recognize the quote, so thanks for the link. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If the article had something like the above, plus a paragraph consisting of heavily linked one-sentence nods to each of his other major research areas, that would be absolutely fine to appear on main page. Or if even that's too much, just the paragraph of one-sentence nods -- there's only one chance for DYK on this (right?) and we should take it. I hope this doesn't make you regret having suggested it.

However, my impression is that once the DYK nomination is in place at the end of the 5 days, there can be quite long periods of discussion about hooks and so on, and this would give time for further improvement.

I'll take care of everything else, with priority to #2 and #3 in my list from my earlier post.

So, whatcha think? Can we do it?

EEng (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It does look within reach to me. In the meantime I've made some progress on understanding the 5th problem, so that's the part I was intending to work on next. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Hilbert done. By my count we've already reached the 5x expansion, but we can't nominate for DYK until it looks like a finished article; in particular, the "expand me" template in the Gleason's theorem section needs to be replaced by actual text. It's probably not too early to start thinking about DYK hooks; do you have any ideas for that? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

See article Talk for hooks. I think you're overstating finished-ness requirement for DYK. From what I can see incredible crap is allowed through -- they seem to case only about superficial stuff like length, no s, no redlinks (?), MOS. I think no one will care if who subtopics are missing or inadequately treated (not that we want it that way). Again -- I think there's at least a few days' delay before article goes live on main page, during which additional work can be done. Here are some DYK links I found:

• WP:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines
• WP:Did you know which btw says D7: There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected. Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. For example, an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents, but contains only a bio of the author and some critics' views, is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive. That's pretty weak.
• .

EEng (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but right now the article does contain an unexpanded header, one of the things it warns against. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

But my experience, limited as it is, is that no one at DYK cares if you just throw out all the s and please-expand templates and stuff -- the things which move article development forward -- as long as it doesn't make it obvious that the article is incomplete. I had a very unpleasant experience with an editor who, because he had a DYK nomination in, wanted certainly-true but momentarily material purged so it wouldn't hold up his DYK nominator . I believe DYK's the 5-day rush, and its article-quality criteria -- quite different from those for GA and FA -- which emphasize superficial stuff like "can't have ", combine to encourage the creation of "Potemkin" articles which pretend to be much more finished than they are. Some of them are downright embarrassing.

Anyway, if time runs out any remaining research topics can be replaced by one-sentence summaries -- no one at DYK will care. It's a real shame, though, because the exposure from being on the main page should be an opportunity for people to see needs-improvement templates, , and so on, and jump in to help. DYK's criteria militate in the exact opposite direction.

Great work you've been doing on this. See hook thoughts at Talk:Andrew Gleason.

EEng (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sometimes DYK does work in the way you think it should: I've been seeing significant improvements on Tubutulik River (one of the nominations I reviewed before putting in my own most recent one) after its DYK yesterday. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

AG nominated

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Andrew_Gleason EEng (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lipman Bers

On 6 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lipman Bers, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lipman Bers. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Not alone anymore

EEng (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

She's a UCI student doing quantum mechanics whom I asked to check the Gleason section. She tells me it looks good. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Should have guessed. I've had a personal distraction but I've got a lot of good material on teaching and personal, but it still needs distilling. Luckily it looks like DYK is way backed up. Good news: looks somewhat positive on getting a photo from Harvard. EEng (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Topological graph theory and theory of topological graphs

Hi David, If you have an opinion on this it would be appreciated. Thanks. Brendan. McKay (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Regards to Delta function

Hey,

I just wanted to say no worries. These situations can a bit confusing to follow sometimes, especially if the discussions are happening on a WikiProject talk page, as opposed to the talk page of the article itself. Anyways, I saw you reverted all of the edits; I was about to do it myself, but you beat me to it. Anyways, I apologize if this caused unnecessary frustration. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

San Diego Comic-Con International meetup proposal

You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/LA/SDCC1. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Alison Miller

You commented in this afd. The article has just be re-created with additional material, and I therefore declined a G4. You may want to have a look at it--and perhaps add some citation data. . You're the expert I trust for this subject DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

She has four papers in MathSciNet, one of which has a surprisingly high number of citations in Google scholar for something so recent (15 for "Arithmetic traces of non-holomorphic modular invariants"), and another of which ("Asymptotic bounds for permutations containing many different patterns") happens to be one of the main references for an active research project of mine. But I think it's still too early to write anything in the article about her research or the citation data for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A question

I could have asked these on the Reference Desk but I preferred asking it to you instead. I am a high school guy interested in Mathematics and Computer Science. My question:

• Programming competitions like International Olympiad in Informatics

tend to emphasise more on algorithms. Is Algorithms the most important field in Computer Science. Major books on algorithms include Introduction to Algorithms and The Art of Computer Programming. Which books are taught after anyone has mastered them and what topics are taught when anyone has mastered algorithms. Thanks in advance. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows what is taught after The Art of Computer Programming has been mastered, because no one have ever mastered it -- for one thing we're all still waiting for the other 14 volumes. EEng (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The study of algorithms and data structures is one of the more fundamental areas of computer science (you can't do much else without them) but that's not the same as being important. Many areas are important in different ways. As for "what is taught afterwards", in my department curriculum we have a required algorithms class that is not too different from the set of topics in Introduction to Algorithms (although I don't use that book — it teaches the subject in a way that makes it seem like an obscure branch of pure mathematics, divorced from actual programming), following which we have several electives on topics like graph algorithms and computational geometry. The course I'm currently teaching is data structures at a graduate level, with the assumption that our incoming graduate students are already familiar with algorithms as taught in the undergraduate curriculum. Even those classes only cover the basics of their subtopics; there is too much for any one person to master everything. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The contents of Computer Science in itself is confusing to me. I am from India and we have weekly one or two Computer Science classes but all in field like Microsoft Office and Microsoft Word although BASIC is also taught. It is very inspiring then to hear advice from professional Computer scientists. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Shame!

You're putting me to shame. I was hoping to get ahold of the festschrift Glimpses mentioned in the AMS Notices, but suddenly I find myself in S. America for two+ weeks. Meanwhile, I'm stalled on getting a photo, which I really had my heart set on -- but all potential sources are in the Boston area, where as you know things have been a bit hectic lately. In fact I was literally boarding the plane at the moment of truth. It's a weird feeling...by the time I get back probably all trace will be gone, like it never happened, even though I live just 500 yards away. Anyway, great work you're doing. I think I can scrounge a section on Teaching from the AMS material, schedule permitting. Now that things are moving again (do you have DYK nom watchlisted?) how much time do you think we have? EEng (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's watchlisted. Given the review, we may have to come up with a hook that more closely reflects his specific accomplishments. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter the discussion there too much, but a problem with ALTS mentioning G-G graph is that Greenwood-Gleason graph redirects to Clebsch graph, which takes a lot of the oomph out of the whole thing, don't you think? One thought is to not link Greenwood-Gleason graph in the hook, but can we just agree to go back to ALT1, since as it turns out our friend didn't object to it? EEng (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with ALT1 is that the usual DYK rules don't tend to allow images that aren't in the article, and that image doesn't have much to do with the content of the article. So if you want to insist on ALT1, you're probably going to have to give up on using an image (unless we can acquire one of Gleason himself). In the meantime continuing to discuss the issue on the nomination page is likely to draw out the nomination process, which looked like it was about to finish; is that what you want? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Gleason photos!

Great news! I just heard back from JB Gleason. Re the photos in Notices credited to her (all but 2 or 3) she writes, "I do hold the rights as noted in the article and do grant permission to include them in Misplaced Pages" -- though there may be a snag wrt to the Navy uniform one -- details later. Anyway, I'm reading up now on how to handle this with OTRS, but I see you're active now so I wanted to catch you -- maybe you know how to handle this. Can I upload the photos and fwd her email to OTRS? Or does she need to send an email directly? Only if you happen to know. Isn't this grand? EEng (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the procedural details of verifying that permission has been granted are less important than exactly what permission was granted. It's not enough to grant permission for the photos to be used in Misplaced Pages. They have to be given an appropriately open license — either CC-BY-SA or something even less restrictive, that would allow not just Misplaced Pages but anyone else to use them on the same terms. See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had decided to omit the 3x5-commons-left-upside-down-backcover-Antartica-release details until I established contact, then somehow forgot just now that her words above wouldn't be enough. In the meantime I've looked at procedures and what's clear (I think) is that I can go ahead and upload, tag OTRS-to-come, and add the images to the article. I'll give her instructions on how she can email formalities tmw to OTRS (they're backlogged 100 days anyway).

Something else: in addition to the Notices photos I would dearly like to include this, copyright Harvard, and they're being quite stuffy about releasing it (with them I gave the CC lecture and they don't seem to know what I'm talking about, which suggests I haven't got to the right person). So I'm thinking a fair-use argument can be made. Some of the text I'm developing on "Teaching" (and I'll have to hurry) is about his great accessibility, office door open all the time, etc. -- there's a great passage about this in Notices. Well, this photo captures that uniquely, don't you think? The quiet giant in his cluttered office? Uniquely enhances the reader's understanding of this facet of that man? That seems reasonable to you, no? EEng (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, it just looks like a portrait of someone in an office to me — it doesn't convey that he is a mathematician or even an academic. I think fair use would have to rest on the argument that no free image of the subject can be found, not on any unique qualities of this image. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Who asked you anyway, you wet blanket!

Seriously, I've been looking around and arguments not too different from this do fly. We shall see. EEng (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1. "Gubernitoral Press Release announcing inauguration of Maggie Hassan". Retrieved 9 Jan 13. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)