User talk:David Eppstein#Undue warning of a block

The WP:10 says in the first rule that one can download images on Wikipedia for free. But what about the other images that are not intended to be domain public like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_map_of_Arizona.svg this one] or any other similar topic of that image? Will this be considered illegal if I, for example, download it anyway? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:Downloading is not problematic. To show the image to you in your browser, it has already downloaded it. The question is what use you make of it. In this case, the image page shows multiple licenses, and your use must fall under one of them (not all of them). One of them, for instance, is the "Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license", which can be abbreviated as CC-BY. Under that license, you are free to make any use you want of that image as long as where you use it you state that it is under this license, credit the person who created it, and state whether you have made changes to the image. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Weighted planar stochastic lattice, Mediation-driven attachment model, most probably authored by Hassan, M K; Hassan, M Z.

I found them during difusing of :category:Graph theory and am tempted to AfD them. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

"the citation is only for the claim that Hypatia wrote in Greek; the source states that explicitly but does not describe the usage of different languages in that milieu" -> yes, that is the reason I moved the citation so that it is only after "Hypatia wrote in Greek," so that it does not cover "which was the language spoken by most educated people in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time."...is this incorrect? Yxtqwf (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry, I think I read the diff backwards. I have restored your edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Regarding my edit (from 20:45, 16 April 2025) which you undid, I added the admittedly trivial step in the formula because, (a) it then more closely resembles the definition of the hypergeometric function, and (b) as it allows to make the formula given in the short description somewhat more aesthetically appealing. None of those reasons is strong, but I found the reasoning to be more transparent that way. Schreib70 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Schreib70 Sorry for butting in, but I think the additional of way you have put the trivial notation is somewhat not really helpful and adding more green bytes, especially confusing for those who does not know about how-to-differentiate-the-Sigma-notation's-index thing: it basically subtract one at both Sigma's indexes $i\; =\; 1$ and $n$ while did the opposite (add) at the outside of the index variable $i$ of $k^\{i-1\}$. Or maybe I was wrong. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

While I am interested in the article you reviewed years ago El Palo Alto, I could not describe what the "jeep-mounted pump" is. But the fact that it is "clogged and bent out of shape by high winds" makes me imagine it as a pump where water passing through the pipe goes up to the top of a tree. I could not find any sources that mention this exactly, nothing but books related to the redwood. A little clarify might be helpful, since maybe some audience does not know what it is. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:Oh wait nevermind about this one. I am foolish for not recognizing this is actually part of a fire truck thing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Or fire jeep I guess —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@David Eppstein By the way, I have found two other things in El Palo Alto I have removed anyway. It looks like there are some kind of a 2024 presentation considered as WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTHESIS, as well as the OpenHistoricalMap cited with a raw link. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello David Eppstein,

Regarding this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Journal_of_Nanoscience_and_Nanotechnology discussion]. I took a look at the sources that discuss the delisting of this journal. I notice in your ivote that you think these do not satisfy GNG.

So, I wish to point out that the [https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/27/impact-factor-denied-20-journals-self-citation-stacking/ Scholarly Kitchen] is published by The Society for Scholarly Publishing. [https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/ Here is the info] for that. Although it is a blog, the opening paragraph on that page says in part that "{{tq|The Scholarly Kitchen}} {{tq|is a moderated and independent blog aimed to help fulfill [the society's] mission...}}" So, being moderated and independent by a set of scholars, wouldn't this be considered RS? Perhaps you have noticed something that I have not.

Next, is the Journal Citation Reports [https://journalcitationreports.zendesk.com/hc/en-gb/articles/28351368597521-JCR-Editorial-Expression-of-Concern#h_01J7P07AWXRXAGQKDYMJJXG8A0 page here]. I know that this is a case of the JCR publishing about its own product (the IF rating). However, JCR is a quality source and a reliable source. This may be a unique instance where we can count on the reliablity of the information on this page (so to speak). What do you think?

Also, I have found another source: Retraction Watch [https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/26/high-profile-indexing-service-punishes-20-journals-issues-unusual-warning-about-five-others/ here]. Yes, this is a Clarivate Analytics page, but again – it is high quality and is highly reliable. I am thinking that this is one of those cases where RS is indicated, although it doesn't fit Wikipedia's specific definition.

Same with the JCR above. I think this is one of those cases where an editor in good standing can say it is reasonable to call the JCR and Retraction Watch acceptable RS, for this unique situation (the AfD discussion). So, what is your opinion?

Regards, ----Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Regardless of their reliability, none of these sources have the depth of coverage needed to satisfy WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::OK thanks. Your response does make sense. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, re {{diff|Wikipedia:Image use policy|prev|1286404472|this revert}}. The default image size is no longer 220px, it has been 250px for about two days now. As I noted at Template talk:Infobox election#Accessibility (which might not be on your watchlist), {{para|upright|1.35}} is equivalent to 300px only when the user is logged in and also has 220px set as their preferred thumbnail size. For those people who are logged out, a recent change to the default thumbnail size, to 250px, means that the equivalent of 300px is now {{para|upright|1.2}} - if {{para|upright|1.35}} continues to be used, the effective width will be 340px. See m:Tech/News/2025/16 (currently posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tech News: 2025-16 and some user talk pages). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:The image policy said that the max lead image size was upright=1.35 and as a courtesy explained that this meant 300px by default. It is completely unclear whether, after the change to the default, we should leave the max lead image size as 1.35 or as 300px. That is why I reverted the change to image policy instead of just letting one of these two options take over without discussion or consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think we'd better continue this at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Lead image size. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

You are removing useful infoboxes from non-BLPs such as Abramo Colorni. Please look more careful before you remove them. You in some cases also removed valuable information and images. Andre🚐 19:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I reverted the historical figures but I left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chen-Nee_Chuah&oldid=1286536214 Chen-Nee Chuah] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yan_Rachinsky&oldid=1283701510 Yan Rachinsky] because they are BLPs, but, notice how you removed a ton of useful information and images? If you remove the infobox you should recreate it manually. Andre🚐 20:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::We should not ever copy content from Wikidata. Its sourcing standards are different from ours, its information is not reliable, and Wikidata content is difficult to edit for Wikipedia editors. If you want the infoboxes, turn them into purely Wikipedia infoboxes by copying the content into Wikipedia, sourcing it propertly, and making sure that all content in the infobox is included as a properly sourced claim in the article text. Until you do, I am going to remove the bad infoboxes you restored, again. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there a discussion or policy precedent? Those infoboxes were not bad. Please cite a specific example that was incorrect. You also removed many images. You are also reverting a revert of a bold edit. That is highly improper. I may wish to start a thread at ANI. Andre🚐 21:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Looks like you also mass reverted my changes with no rationale using rollback. Are you saying my edit was vandalism? Andre🚐 21:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I boldly removed infoboxes regardless of how longstanding they were; it is you who are double-reverting and now triple-reverting my removals. You should be aware that you are in serious danger of violating WP:3RR.

::::As for past discussions regarding Wikidata inclusion for infoboxes, there have been many. Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC is a relevant starting point —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What are you talking about? I have not double or triple reverted. Cite a diff for that. Andre🚐 21:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability}} cite one example of something I restored that was inaccurate. Andre🚐 21:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::David Eppstein If what are you are trying to say is " I believe using WikiData WP:Synth", then why didn't you say so?, Also I wouldn't agree with that idea in this case Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, synth is something else. Using Wikidata is relegating the responsibility for English Wikipedia content to people who are not acting as English Wikipedia editors. By doing so we have no hope of enforcing our content guidelines and policies, and we have little hope of tracking content there and making sure that if it ever was good it remains so. We should not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That is silly. You can simply go to Wikidata and check what reference is there. Using SUL, you can go edit the Wikidata entries. You have a responsibility to ensure you are doing this carefully and discriminately. Andre🚐 04:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No. Wikipedia sourcing requirements are clear. Sources need to be given within the article itself. Even when a source is present in another Wikipedia article that is wikilinked within the claim that needs a source, it is not good enough. See recent discussion at {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Citing sources|Citing when the source is in the hyperlink (transclusion)?}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Actually, the thing to do per WP:V is to WP:CHALLENGE the statement if you believe it is unlikely to be verifiable, and the right thing to do if you are reverting infoboxes en masse is to consider what you should yourself restore that is easily verified. And if someone reverts you, give them a chance to restore the material, or tag it with {{tlx|citation needed}}. Also, in the cases where the infobox is summarizing material in the article body, per WP:INFOBOXCITE, if the references are in the article body, that is fine. You also removed images that probably have a fine license to illustrate the material. You should verify that you are actually not disimproving articles. Plus, as mentioned, you claimed BLP on 6 of 8 articles that were long-dead people. Andre🚐 06:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You do go on, don't you. Please stop. You're not helping improve my opinion of your edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at that article. I wrote it. Take a look at my contributions. Do you think this is a polite statement? Andre🚐 23:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. Andre🚐 21:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect for your substantial contributions to Wikipedia, please remember to AGF. At Lexicographic product of graphs, I appear to have missed it in the initial scan, but the article used parenthetical referencing, which has been deprecated on Wikipedia. Either way, I am merely being a WikiImp and adding maintenance tags to articles that I have added short descriptions to; {{tq|have some little clicky blue footnote markers}} and {{tq|Does that make you feel more pacified? Fnord.}} comes off as sarcastically telling me that my contributions are a negative asset to Wikipedia. Please consider refraining from using unnecessary edit summaries that may be interpreted as demeaning other editors, especially those less experienced than you. Best regards, it's lio! | talk | work 11:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Dear mr. Eppstein,

Your expertise is needed. On 22 April 2025 (02:19) I updated the article Implicational propositional calculus. My update got reverted with the argument that "I am missing the whole point which is to avoid using falsum ($\backslash bot$) in the formulas". Could you please verify that claim.

I have a more general question.

Currently, when I decide to update an article — see: Talk:Implicational propositional calculus#Substantial improvements needed — I simply make the change and then wait for any feedback or critique. Is there a way to submit a major update for collaborative review by a group of users before publishing it?In the German Wikipedia all edits are reviewed (“gesichtet”) — though I’m not sure by whom — before they are placed in line.

It is disappointing if a lot of work has been invested into an update, and some lone user reverts it because he does not like a semicolon. (In those cases I immediately resign if the user sticks to his guns.)

Some time ago you mentioned "consensus". I didn’t quite understand what you meant by that — consensus by whom, exactly? That group could review edits before publication.

––– Marc Schroeder (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)