Talk:David Eppstein/Archive 1

Subject of this article

is currently up at WP:RFA, and it looks like he will pass, in the early stages. Abeg92contribs 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Should I be listed under Category:Graph theorists? I think my recent invited talk at the international symposium on graph theory (Bled'07) gives me a pretty strong claim to that category, not to mention my publications, some number of which are purely on graph theory with little algorithmic content. But it's more of a value judgement than a documentable fact so I'm a little uncomfortable making that edit myself. More broadly, should others who have worked on graph algorithms but not on non-algorithmic graph theory be listed in that category, I wonder? —David Eppstein 20:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Agentareas! —David Eppstein 04:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unthanks, Lar. Did you look at whether the edits Agentareas made were constructive or not before undoing them? —David Eppstein 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, XDanielx! —David Eppstein 04:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another category that it would be appropriate for someone to add: Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it should be here

The person himself/herself will agree.

No current research since 1999.

No celebrated research - working on a famous mathematical problems.

Not all awards are significant to list.

There are hundred of thousands of mathematicians superior to this in China, Europe, India, Russia to list a few. It is our ignorance.

May be listed down the road if significant work is accomplished.

Several areas are mentioned as field of research - are there research work done in those areas - list them or reduce the list.

We cannot add just like that the entries.

He/she is working member of Wikipedia - that should not be a criteria to include.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that (1) DBLP lists about 130 papers since 1999, so the nominator is a little confused, (2) I'm a computer scientist primarily, so of course my work isn't on celebrated mathematical conjectures, (3) the nominator has been involved with me in some disputes recently regarding some articles related to intersection graph, and (4) I have the strong impression that he was involved with me earlier in a dispute whether some students of S. S. Shrikhande were worthy of inclusion on the list of people with low Erdos numbers. So it's a little hard to assume good faith in this instance. But I'll leave it for someone else to unprod the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This nomination for deletion was clearly unwarranted and I have removed the deletion prod tag. Tangi-tamma, if you still insist on deletion, you can take the nomination to WP:AFD. The subject passes the requirements of WP:PROF by over a mile: he has well over a hundred publications, many of them very highly cited. GoogleScholar [1] gives top citation hits of 455, 380, 195, 181, 147, 112, etc. These are extremely high citation rates for Mathematics. Contrary to your statement, there are lots of publications since 1999, see DBLP. As I said, you can try your luck at AfD, but in my view this nomination has absolutely no chance there. The fact that you were involved in a WP dispute with the subject of the nomination makes it even worse. Nsk92 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not have any dispute; It is your personality that thinks so and you are guessing on me. I think I should go away from Wipedia. The # of papers should not be the criteria. I could list many with over 150 ppapers. Let us not argue on this. Thanks.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The key point is not the number of publications per se, but the fact that substantial number of them are very highly cited. This is how Criterion 3 of WP:PROF is typically satisfied. As I said, you are welcome to take the deletion nomination to WP:AFD and have it go through a formal AFD discussion and vote there. Regarding whether or not you had a WP dispute with the subject of the article, this is easily verifiable. One simply has to look up Talk:Intersection graph, which is what I did. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your other point. Yes, there are many academics who are more notable than this one and who do not yet WP entries; Wikipedia is still very much a project under development and there are many gaps in coverage of notable topics and people. But that is not a good reason to delete this entry. Rather, it is a good reason to create WP entries for these other people. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the points that Tangi-tamma is making should be raised at WP:AFD if the point of the arguing them is to push for a deletion. Re your edit summaries: It would be wonderful if there are hundreds of mathematicians and other scientists in India and the rest of the world more notable. I hope you're right--let's get articles about them, rather than trying to delete well-written articles about notable Western scientists. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a notable mathematician on wikipedia only. This is what I was planning to write.

Abdulalim A. Shabazz . This is what I call Notable and many will agree with me. Please do not read me wrongly that I'm back proposing deletion of Eppstein. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) First of all, let us not talk about Eppstein. If I continue, it is going to hurt me. He and I have worked together on Bivariegated graph. Why I took his name is because I knew him on wikipedia. I was trying to write a bio of a mathematician, but I was worried whether it will be accepted. In that context, I thought of studying Eppstein Bio including others. In a way, he is a kind of an established computer science professor including graph theory.

I'm not talking about any Indian mathematicians; Everybody is equal to me.

I ask you to look into Line graphs of hypergraphs and work on that to make it a better piece. Eppstein is helping too. Thanks.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the criteria for notability: The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area.

For me it is obvious that this person is not in most of the cases mentioned above. His external links even point to pages he wrote about himself. Clearly this is a vanity article in the redaction and defense of which the concerned is very, very much involved. Advertchaser (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read the above discussion and the previous AFD? By "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" the WP:PROF guideline does not mean "significant" like Charles Darwin – the guideline is easily met by this subject. Please do not use inappropriate language, particularly when discussing living persons: this article exists because editors on Wikipedia created and kept the article (so "vanity" is totally incorrect); the external links in the article are not "his". Johnuniq (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As the Notes and Examples in WP:PROF say, criterion 1 is typically satisfied by showing that the person has been an author of highly cited academic work. This is exactly the case here. GoogleScholar shows that the subjects work has been highly cited[2] with top citation hits of 695, 524, 303, 260, 247, 210, 179, 134, 127, 119 and h-index of about 41. In addition, again as WP:PROF notes, editorship of academic journals can be considered as a contributing factor in satisfying croterion 1 of WP:PROF. The subject has been an editorial board member of several well-established journals; among them SIAM Journal on Computing, which is one of the top journals in theoretical computer science. Also, he has been on the program committee of STOC multiple times (in 1994, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009). STOC (together with FOCS) is one of the two most prestigious annual computer science conferences. So there is more than enough here for satisfying WP:PROF. Regarding the external links section, it is perfectly appropriate and in fact customary to include a link to the person's web-page in a WP article about that person, there is nothing untoward or unusual here. If you feel really strongly that the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted, you can list it for WP:AFD. However, I am pretty sure that any such AfD would result in a keep decision. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The bizarre part is that I only have two STOC papers — I much more frequently send my papers to other conferences. But they keep asking me to be on the PC anyway and I find it difficult to say no. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shh! the walls have ears. :-) --Cybercobra (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Shrikhande

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Eppstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangi-tamma (talk • contribs) 22:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC) could someone show me how to use this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzannacalhoun (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

nsfgradfellows

I'm glad you were able to find sources for the information on the article, but the nsfgradfellows page is a little odd. "Born in England, he spent his academic career in the United States earning citizenship."?? What is that supposed to mean? I became a US citizen as a junior high school student (after having been in the U.S. since shortly before my fourth birthday) so it is my parents more than I who earned it, and my later academic career had nothing to do with it. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in the process of looking around to see what other reliable sources exist on you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, as I'm at it, it occurs to me that you could just add it to your website.... --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are holding dual citizenship (including GB), you may write it on your page.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abdulalim A. Shabazz

Here is a notable mathematician on wikipedia only. This is what I was planning to write.

Abdulalim A. Shabazz . This is what I call Notable and many will agree with me. Please do not read me wrongly that I'm back proposing deletion of Eppstein. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture? Why?

JonnieIrvine (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)What is the reason for wanting a picture of Eppstein on the article? He is not known for his beauty or looks (I have had him at UC Irvine, so I should know). Pointless except for vanity. He is such a minor figure, I just cannot understand why anyone would really care what he looks like, except presumably his family. JonnieIrvine.JonnieIrvine (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken information in new edits

It is not true that I was ever a British citizen. My original citizenship was from New Zealand, where my parents were from, though I have never actually lived in NZ. My parents moved from NZ to England, where I was born, and then moved again to California, where I grew up and still live. My naive understanding of British citizenship law is that, at the time I was born, citizens of the commonwealth (including NZ) who were born on British soil had the right to request British citizenship, but I have never so requested.

If you want more detailed information than the new "doctoral_students = Some" line in the infobox, you can go to David A. Eppstein at the Mathematics Genealogy Project. Though it's not clear to me whether one is supposed to list all students in that line, or only the notable ones; none of my doctoral students have their own Wikipedia articles.

I don't believe the "religion" line is relevant and would prefer to leave it blank than putting an explicit "not known" there. Of course it's known, to me.

As for JohnnieIrvine's insultingly-worded question about why someone would want a photo of me, you could try asking User:David Gerard, the editor who put the photo request there, but I have recently been working on adding some freely licensed photos to other biography articles (see this commons category) — I think it adds some interest and value to their articles to see what they look or looked like. And obviously they're not all actors and models but that's not the point. I haven't bothered to push for or create a freely-licensed photo of myself, but you can find a few different photos of me on the tabs on my home page; if anyone other than Irvine thinks one of them would be appropriate to include here as well, I can at least tell you who the photographers are so that you can ask for permission. I don't want to put a lot of effort into that myself but I don't want to stand in your way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A Couple of Clarificatory Points from JonnieIrvine

JonnieIrvine (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Professor Eppstein, given that you purport to be concerned with the truth and have ready access to the facts, namely, the full text of various nationality acts, (not hard to find, surely, for a computer scientist), and further, that the webpage David Eppstein, is not merely a personal sinecure page for "services rendered" to Wikepedia, you should understand the terms of The British Nationality Act 1948 and The British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948. You, David Eppstein (whether sought or not; ex lege) were (i) a British subject (BNA 1948 s.1)--the law in effect until The Citizenship Act (New Zealand) 1977; and (ii) a British citizen, again, whether sought or not; for under s.4 BNA 1948 "... every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. You were born in England under these operative terms, hence a British citizen simpliciter. No action is taken. You do not register. Moreover, the mere fact that you have acquired US citizenship does not, of itself, automatically cancel previous citizenships unless they are expressly renounced in appropriate form. Would you say that your "naivety" (asserting truth claims in ignorance of the facts) led you to make such an error?

As to the harmless little jest about appearance, I too am plain and non-notable. I just do not think that Wikepedia is the place for photos of non-notable foot soldiers generally. It cheapens the content. You, alas, are merely one of a class that I do not think should be included. Leave the photos, Professor Eppstein, for the appreciation of family and friends. Have mercy on the rest of humankind. JonnieIrvine (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not doing anything to make me think better of you. Why don't you just give it up and find someone else to attempt to drive away from Wikipedia? For that's what I interpret your constant attacks and jibes as (assuming you're the same person as longtime antagonist Irvine22, which the similarity of names and modus operandi makes likely): my article was created before I edited Wikipedia, and (after I learned of WP's COI policies) I've had very little to do with editing it, but you seem to view the simultaneous existence of an article and a user page here as a personal affront. Since the user page is the only one I over which have any significant control, the inference about what you want me to do is clear.

By the way, taking US citizenship does involve an express renouncement of other citizenships. Whether those other countries recognize such a renouncement is a different question. Given that I'm not attempting to change my citizenship, nor edit Wikipedia articles on international law, I think my ignorance of the subject is excusable, and you'll pardon me if I don't take your word as being sound legal advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

JonnieIrvine (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Professor Eppstein. A couple of further clarificatory points, if I may. Taking your second point first. Past ignorance is generally excusable unless it is wilful. Categorical assertions that are false--"It is not true that I was ever a British citizen"--do certainly require correction by those with knowledge to the contrary. Before I would make a categorical assertion of this kind for public display, I would endeavor to check my facts. Repeating such a claim would not be so excusable. No Professor Eppstein, I would not expect you to take my word for it. It is, I believe, a question of independent “verification”--a principle, I believe, generally shared by scientists. I have kindly provided you with the requisite sources so that you may grasp and not repeat the error made. These authoritative sources (primary documents) are publically accessible and require only modest English reading ability and comprehension, content that millions of immigrants all over the world have grasped and understood. No expertise in International Public Law is required. Really, Professor Eppstein, you do seem a bit prone to exaggeration, perhaps for dramatic effect. Having recently looked again at the “David Eppstein” web page on Wikipedia regarding your achievements to date, apparently the world is simply expected to take your Online CV, you own website, and your own (sometimes erroneous) interjectory notes dotted about the place as the independent declared third party source of knowledge about you and your noteworthiness. Verification? A case of the pot calling the kettle tainted perhaps?

As to the other matter, I am not Irvine22, although I do agree with and endorse a number of his or her substantive points. Reflecting a broad sense of affinity in one’s choice of name is surely the instantiation of good classificatory principle. I share his or her desire to see Wikipedia made a genuinely better encyclopedia by challenging dubious entries or entries of poor substantive worth, especially entries that seem to be tampered with by the subjects themselves or their surrogates and agents. Such a task is informed by a desire to serve the public good.JonnieIrvine (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I take your phrasing involving "tampering", and insinuations that I have "surrogates and agents" here to do my bidding, as another uncivil personal attack, after you were expressly warned to cease such attacks. If you want to challenge the article, do it properly, via an AfD: it doesn't serve the public good to post attacks on the subjects of the articles, whether on the articles themselves (as the other Irvine, whom you identify yourself as being in agreement with, has done) or in the talk page, regardless of your opinion of the notability of those subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

JonnieIrvine (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Professor Eppstein. Thank you for your further clarificatory responses. If I may. "I share his or her desire to see Wikipedia made a genuinely better encyclopedia by challenging dubious entries or entries of poor substantive worth, especially entries that seem to be tampered with by the subjects themselves or their surrogates and agents. Such a task is informed by a desire to serve the public good". This is a statement of my general aim or philosophy and applies to Wikipedia generally. You were not singled out here for special mention. You were not cited as an example. I would have thought it a declaratory aim that all Wikipedians, new or old, in good conscience, could subscribe to. It is hardly a personal attack but a clear statement of purpose. This is a case of misrepresentation. Further, my response, by way of clarification, was implicitly asked for.

Let me continue, Professor Eppstein. It appears that want to have it both ways: to be both "victim" and "accuser". By responding to my comments, is this not a least a tacit endorsement of the appropriateness of the venue for further commentary? This is after all, the talk page immediately next to the heading David Eppstein "article". Perhaps I am myself not yet fully enlightened as to the ways of posting responses. Should you not have raised the point earlier with a "cease and desist from comment” statement? By responding and raising further points you were clearly inviting further commentary on the points of disagreement. By saying that Irvine22 and I are basically the same, you court further commentary in order to clarify as to similarities and dissimilarities.

Further, Professor Eppstein, with regard to "you were expressly warned" by whom? Does this refer to the very person Ashanta who erroneously edited the article "David Eppstein" that you personally decided to intervene, edit, amend and correct and who has been in communication with you with regard to your subsequent edit? In my editing of the article “David Eppstein”, I have been transparently scrupulous in my editing of the article with regard to changes of fact pro bono publico. I am sure you are aware of this having recently edited the article yourself.JonnieIrvine (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "Ashanda", not "Ashanta". :-) May I ask what exactly has got you upset? I don't see that Professor Eppstein has done anything improper. Minor lapses in knowledge about citizenship law shouldn't be a cause for an argument, just a correction like you and I have both done. If you could explain the motivation behind your aggressive posts, perhaps the issue could be addressed. Thanks! Ashanda (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that JonnieIrvine's contribution history consists solely of edits related to this article, I find his "you are not singled out" claims to be disingenuous at best. But I don't see further interaction with him as likely to lead to anything constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious - this page is for discussing the David Eppstein article, not for personal attacks on David Eppstein the person. The guidelines for talk pages are at WP:TALK.

User:JonnieIrvine, if you think something in the article is incorrect (and you have references to support it), then edit away and feel free to comment on those edits here. But your personal views about Eppsteins character and personality aren't relevant to the article and don't belong on this page. Euryalus (talk)

23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to confirm that I am not the same person as JonnieIrvine. Also, I dispute that the minor edit I made some months ago constitutes an attack either on the article or the subject. It represented my personal view of the adequacy of the publications listed on the page at that point in time. It was pointed out to me that such personal views are not appropriate encyclopedic content, and I accept that. It did, however, seem to have the effect of prompting others - perhaps the subject, perhaps his proxy - to edit the article to include further infromation about Eppstein's publications, which are evidently quite extensive. I actually disagree with Jonnie Irvine about the appropropriateness of a subject editing a biography article. I think it should be permissible and I just regret that Wikipedia's COI guidelines make it hard to do so openly. After all, who would have better information about David Eppstein than David Eppstein? And given that - for better or worse - Wikipedia articles are often amongst the first to come up on Google, subjects have IMO a legitimate interest in ensuring the information they contain is accurate. Once a subject has been determined to be notable, and an article passed for inclusion, as is clearly the case with this one, I think a subject should feel free to edit away! (I do still feel, however, that the link to Eppstein's personal website borders on advertising, but I'm sure it's a grey area.)

I find the argument about Eppstein's citizenship to be somewhat arcane - he is clearly just an American, although I suppose the information about his Kiwi heritage adds a certain hobbity color to the page.

Finally, I don't share JonnieIrvine's aversion to pictures on biography articles. I actually agree with username David Eppstein (who I assume is the subject of the article, but you can never be totally sure) that it is good to know what people look/looked like. As the subject is evidently also a photograher, I'd encourage him to go ahead and license a photo already and stick it on the page. He shouldn't be shy. He looks okay to me. Nothing to write home about, but not exactly ugly.Irvine22 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Irvine22. Yes, I am the same person as the subject of this article. The issue with "just licensing a photo already" is that they're mostly not by me and therefore need the permission of someone else than me in order to license them. But I took and would be willing to licence the one here if you don't mind that it's a mirror image of what I look like (it was shot into a mirror, and I don't like the way it looks if I unreverse it). Or I could ask the photographer of the one here whether she'd be willing to licence it appropriately. Unfortunately the one that I think is most suitable for the article, this one, is unable to be freely licensed due to some arcane process of my institution's intellectual property ownership, and had to be deleted earlier (after being uploaded as a fair use publicity photo) because it could not be properly licensed.

As for whether I should edit the article directly, and whether others in a similar position should be allowed to do so more freely, I'm mostly happy letting it be someone else's problem. That way I don't have to worry about whether I'm making an edit to serve an encyclopedic purpose or to be self-promoting. These days I try to intervene only when I think there's something misleading that needs to be fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

JonnieIrvine (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Professor Eppstein and Ashanda (I hope I am correct this time in spelling your name). Thank you for both coordinating your responses to my earlier posting. So, I take it that this page is indeed the correct venue for a fledgling Wikipedia supporter to make their views and responses known after all concerning the article "David Eppstein", in part, edited and corrected by "David Eppstein". I'm pleased, also, that we can agree that Professor Eppstein's status has been clarified and the "not true" statement he levied has been accordingly met. I have been merely responding to Professor Eppstein's continuing engagement. I made the original change viz. nationality on the "David Eppstein" page, and it was incorrectly edited by Ashanda by virtue of Professor Eppstein's incorrect posting on this page as a key source of information appealed to in order to revise the article by Ashanda the warning giver. Error in amendment compounding error in this posting. Professor Eppstein takes exception to his page being scrutinised. I see that someone else has removed the request for a photo. Not I. A positive response. Welcome scrutiny. I merely sought to raise the issue with some jovial light hearted university banter that I thought Professor Eppstein would appreciate and should certainly be used to at UCI. I even sought to include myself in a rejoinder to the "photo" comment to show that he was not "singled out", but was one of many, in my view, not worthy of a photo thus having "mercy on humankind". It seems my scrutiny has brought forth positive fruit. As to the issue of why I should spend my time revising and checking a figure of minor significance in Wikipedia, Ashanda, I do indeed wonder about that myself. This is a difficult question for me to address. Perhaps I have too much idle time on my hands! UCI, alas, does have more than its fair share of that sort of thing. And yet still, perhaps, the public deserves veracity even in minor matters. I do have a list of other pages to engage with. I'll take your advice and see how this admittedly minor article for scrutiny plays out versus other (more worthy) subjects ....JonnieIrvine (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Establishing the notability on the article itself

I don't know David Eppstein's work; so I can not assess whether he is notable of not. The problem is that the article does a very poor job in establishing that he is notable; especially in the lead. In fact, the lead reads very similarly in scope to my own bio, and I'm definitively not notable. Here is my suggestion: That someone edits the article to include (in the lead and body) those facts that establish the notability of the subject. For instance, what are his scientific contributions, what impact have these contributions caused, what is the number of papers or the number of cited papers, awards (in the lead), etc? I hope people understand that this is a constructive suggestion, and I don't take part in any discussion. Also, I will not insist on this. Renato (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are not participating in any discussion, but I will respond to you as if you were intending on listening and responding in kind. You make a good suggestion, but at the same time you fail to realize that your suggestion is not well thought out in some ways. Sure, it would be great to introduce a bit on his impact in the lede. That would make it more interesting. But since you don't know his work, that will hardly help to establish his notability. In fact, it is pretty easy to write a blurb explaining someone's work that is not notable and it is often difficult to tell (if you are outside the area) if it is indeed notable. One requires some inside knowledge of the subject. Similarly, numbers like number of papers and citations and so forth require inside knowledge to ascertain impact. Some subfields have particularly low citation numbers compared to others. And of course, number of papers does not establish quality. Putting these factoids into an article also does not read for a good article. Sometimes sadly, we include such info to keep an article from being deleted, but nobody argues that this makes for good writing.

Indeed, someone with some knowledge of American academia and Wikipedia guidelines can easily tell David Eppstein is notable. It was a bit unclear before, but I've now changed the 1st sentence to mention Eppstein is a professor at UCI CS dept. That is not an easy thing to accomplish at all and certainly puts Eppstein above a number of professor bios on Wikipedia (being significantly above the "average professor" is simply all that is required by notability guidelines). --C S (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that, if only we could gain public access to the documents used in tenure and promotion actions, the "typical professor" would be much more clearly notable, and we would have a much easier time avoiding original research by synthesis when writing these articles. For instance, last year I went through a review that looked at what I've been doing in the ten years since I became a full professor, including eight or so letters from outside experts assessing the impact of my work. The review materials also included a self-statement in which I summarized my work from the period, and which I include below. It wouldn't do to use it as-is in this article — for one thing, it doesn't even talk about my earlier work, on dynamic programming, mesh generation, dynamic graph algorithms, and robust statistics, for another it can't be used as a reliable source — but maybe it would be useful to include here to give this article's editors a better feel for my work. The numbers refer to the list of papers on my cv which is available on my web site.

Eppstein's most heavily cited paper, "Finding the k shortest paths" (J49), provides the first optimal solution to a widely studied problem: finding many short paths between two given nodes in a network. His solution takes constant time per path, improving previous solutions that were at least an order of magnitude slower. The papers that cite this one span a wide variety of application areas: quality of service routing in communication networks, hypothesis generation in natural language processing, biological sequence alignment, vehicle navigation, alternative strategy planning in computer chess, metabolic pathway reconstruction, failure analysis, peptide sequencing, and chemical kinetics.

Another influential and heavily-cited paper within the review period, "The crust and the beta-skeleton: combinatorial curve reconstruction" (J46, with Marshall Bern and Nina Amenta) considers "connect-the-dots" like problems in which a curve or surface must be reconstructed accurately from scattered sample points. The paper introduced the idea that a correct reconstruction could be guaranteed if the sample density is proportional to some measure of local feature size, a common theme of subsequent work in the area.

In a sequence of papers with several authors, Eppstein developed a theory of "quasiconvex programming", a framework for formulating geometric optimization problems that combines features of both numerical hill-climbing optimization techniques and combinatorial "LP-type" simplex-based methods from computational geometry. He and his co-authors applied this method to problems in unstructured mesh improvement (J52), automated solution of the recurrences arising in algorithm analysis (J79, C78), facility location and network design (J86, C90), structured mesh generation and information visualization (C65), and multi-projector display color space optimization (C74). This work was the subject of an invited address by Eppstein at the 2004 European Symposium on Algorithms, and a book chapter by Eppstein surveying the area (B13).

Eppstein's paper characterizing the minor-closed graph families in which the treewidth can be bounded by a function of the diameter (J57) spawned a long sequence of papers by Demaine, Hajiaghayi, and others on fixed-parameter tractability of graph problems: it turns out that, in many of the same graph families, many natural graph parameters can be bounded in terms of each other, and this relation between these parameters allows them to be computed quickly when they are sufficiently small.

Eppstein's forthcoming book, "Media Theory" (with Falmagne and Ovchinnikov) studies combinatorial structures equivalent to the graphs that may be labeled with a simple data structure for computing distance: a bitvector label per vertex, such that the graph distance between any two vertices equals the Hamming distance between their labels. The book provides many natural examples of combinatorial systems that have this property -- one arising in Eppstein's geometric research is the system of triangulations and flips between triangulations in a rectilinear grid of points -- and describes algorithms for computing with them efficiently. It is based in part on several of Eppstein's papers on similar topics (J76, J80, C86, C98, C100), which Eppstein spoke about in an invited address at the 6th Slovenian International Conference on Graph Theory in 2007.

Other themes in Eppstein's research in this period include finite element mesh generation (J44, J47, J52, J53, J55, J60, J68, J73, C47, C65), dynamic graph algorithms (J43, J50, C73, C88, B5), data structures for maintaining pairwise interactions among dynamic objects (J54, J59, J62, C48, C49, C54, C80), parametric optimization (J48, J70, C57, C94), robust nonparametric statistics (J56, J67, C59, C60), graph drawing (J61, J85, J87, C51, C65, C70, C76, C77, C79, C82, C86, C87, C93, C96, C97, C98, C103, B12), and exponential-time algorithms (J71, J75, J82, C61, C64, C75, C88).

—David Eppstein (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Eppstein, thank you for this (partial) summary of your contributions. This is indeed tons of evidence that you are notable. Excuse me if I say so, but it is even clearer to me now that the article does not give you due merit. By mainly describing a few personal facts of your life, it is failing to depict your notable contributions. My suggestion is that someone include at least part of what is described above into the article -- I'm sure much of it is verifiable; Claims such as "spawned a long sequence of papers" can be proven by databases (citeseer...) and claims such "The paper introduced the idea that" can rely on the article/book itself, since it is not 'self-publishing'.

—Renato (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: By mainly describing a few personal facts of your life, it is failing to depict your notable contributions.: I agree, but I'm not going to edit my own article to correct that failing. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

I'm finding it hard to understand the paradox of giving a notable(?) Wiki editor his own Wiki page. Other than to document the acheivements of a college professor, I honestly don't see the point in keeping this article. I'm voting this for speedy deletion. PowderedToastMan (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion, but the issue may arise again, so I ask the question: If Wikipedia has an article about a notable person, is that person permitted to become an active Wikipedian?

Clearly the answer is yes, and since anyone with Erdős number 2 is notable, the Eppstein article is relevant. --Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP:PROF explicitly states that a low Erdős number is not by itself a sufficient condition for notability (notes and examples, #7). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pic

We do need a pic for this article. See also this talk. Is there any Wikipedian who is a photographer and is living near Eppstein so that they could arrange to have a professional shoot under GFDL? NerdyNSK (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

JonnieIrvine Why bother when Eppstein has lots of photos of himself, taken by himself dotted about all over the shop? Why should we bother anyone else? […]--JonnieIrvine (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC), one sentence removed by Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

An image has been requested. It doesn't matter who takes the image. Please bear in mind that article talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not making personal comments about the article's subject. Euryalus (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment Euryalus. The question of a photograph, who takes it and its accuracy, are certainly pertinent to the "article's subject". We do surely want the best posssible photograph of this most notable of subjects whose contributions as a notable Wikipedian are substantial. Since Eppstein states in his webpages that he is a keen amateur photographer and he lives very near to Eppstein, for he his the very subject, […] --JonnieIrvine (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC), half a sentence deleted by Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There are several different shots of me on the different tabs of my home page. We already tried using the one on the "classes" tab, but there's a problem with the copyright on that one (it's owned by the university and for some reason they can't figure out how to release it under a free license). I know who took each of the others and would be happy to seek the appropriate permissions. Just pick one and ask. As for self-portraits, the one on the "about" tab of my home page is one; it's mirrored from how I normally look (and I don't like what the picture looks like if you un-mirror it) but if that's not a problem I would be willing to release it under CC-BY-SA, if that's the preferred choice among the photos of me. I'm pretty sure I can get a similar release for the others. What I'm not willing to do is to pick a photo on my own initiative and add it to this article. So if you want me to supply a photo, ask. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish?

Thought I'd ask. :D

Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not by Jewish law, not by practice, not by upbringing. I have some Jewish ancestors, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mother/father aren't Jewish? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My mother has no Jewish ancestry. Therefore... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, you are still considered Jewish even with fraternal lineage. Keep in mind, most extremely orthodox won't, but in a legal sense you are considered Jewish Who is a Jew. By legal, I mean qualify for [[Israeli citizenship]. Congrats.

Tell me, because I'm curious: when you assert that I'm Jewish based only on a subset of my distant ancestry, contradicting my own assertion that I'm not, are you following the one-drop rule or the Nuremberg Laws? Because you don't seem to be following the rules described in the link you give: I was not raised Jewish, neither was my father, and the link says that's important among those people who don't accept the matrilineal rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One-drop rule LOL. Look, Eppstein, if your father is Jewish, you're Jewish. Upbringing might be a concern if you want to come out of the closet, but you're ethnically Jewish in my opinion. There is no set-in-stone in what makes on Jew and one does not other than of course believing in Judaism, but if you're father is Jewish, you are legally Jewish in the event that you wanted citizenship in Israel. It's not so much an argument as it is a personal choice to accept your Jewishness. You are ethnically Jewish, even if you were raised in Christian/Muslim/Buddhist environment you still be considered Jewish points. Some might disagree considering your obvious willful denial for not being brought up in such an environment, but if you ever decided to "embrace" it, you'd be considered a Jew. Get it? It seem pretty stupid to qualify as a Jew in Israel but not in your own perspective LOL. I'm sure you've thought about this before.

But whatever floats your boat man, it's all good...Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is your tight focus on Jewishness. What's significant about it? Why are you asking so much about that, and so little about my Irish ancestry, if you're so convinced that Jewishness involves ancestry rather than practice and belief? And why does it matter so much to you what someone's ancestors believed and so little to you what they themselves believe? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive? I just asking if you were Jewish and then I answered your questions to the best my ability. It's not that big of a deal. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it bluntly, since my more nuanced hints above didn't seem to register; and please pardon my lack of good faith. I fear you are a racist, and that your editing on Wikipedia is more informed by your racism than by WP:NPOV. Your fixed focus on matters that most non-racists find very unimportant leads me to that conclusion, your thought that the one-drop rule might be something to laugh about is even more suggestive, and your thought that I must think of Jewishness as something to be defensive about confirms this in my mind. Whether you are the kind of racist who thinks that having Jewish ancestors is a good thing or the kind who thinks it is a bad thing is not so important to me — what's more relevant is that you think ancestry matters at all. Based on this, I don't see the point in continuing to interact with you. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The hints registered, but I thought I'd answer the questions just to be clear. So, I'm a racist now? Really? My fixed focus on what, Jews? Uh? So because I have a special interest in Jewish/Islamic-topics I'm racist? You Sir seem to have a peculiar obsession with math that violates WP:NPOV, therefor, I deem you a math supremacist. : )

Encouraging one to discuss ancestry is not inherently racist. I think you're confusing racism with apathy. You don't care about being Jewish/Arab/Muslim/whatever and that's cool, but it doesn't make other people racist for people who do. I don't consider people who are non-Jews to be inferior, as a racist accusation would infer. If anything, it is you who discriminates. Brushing people off simply because they don't fit the stereotypical cookie cutter state school politically correct agenda. Though I'm not exactly surprised, seeing is how concerned you are about even the slightest reference of *GASP* ethnicity lolz. I was just trying to be polite and sincere, but responding with the racist flag....wow.

And you're a professor? Actually, that makes sense.

I know it must be hard being such an intellectual superior. I know us ethnic folks don't understand the geniuses' of the tolerant. Teach me. ; ) A little education. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry to bust in here, but may I ask WHY this topic is being discussed in such detail and what relevance does it have to improving this article? --Tom 14:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, after he called me racist it couldn't have been more predictable. I thought he might be Jewish, I didn't say he was, and from the looks of it he is. But, I'm not going to mess with his article, I don't care. I'm a fan of truth but if it offends someone, ahhh not in the mood to get blocked. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo

After repeated requests here for an appropriate photo, I've obtained an appropriate license for and uploaded this one. Please feel free to add it to the article, or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Put it back if it is found appropriate

Eppstein maintains and edits the content of his own web site called the Geometry Junkyard (see External Links below). It provides lists of hyperlinks to other web sites on a range of geometry topics from circles, spheres, and spirals to tilings, polyhedra, and origami.

Localsales (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This must be added to wikipedia, somehow. "Junkyard" here actually means "Goldmine". 71.138.70.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC).

NSF graduate fellowship (1984 – 1987)
National Merit scholarship (1981 – 1984) - These are not worthy to be listed - Put it back if found appropriate

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and I don't think my opinion should be worth very much in this case) I agree. We don't usually list this level of award in academic biographies. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I realized it and respectfully deleted it. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I see that you moved this article from "David Eppstein" to "David A. Eppstein". Although that is my correct middle initial, I never use it professionally: all of my papers are published as "David Eppstein". So I'm not sure how justified the move is according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My fault. Thanks. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Age?

Okay, besides arguing the notability of this article as countless people and/or socks and trolls have, I do have one question: Why is his age listed as "46-47"? Seeing as he is an admin and heavily contributing member to this site itself, shouldn't we have an accurate birth date? I am no troll and have no personal beef with Mr. Eppstein. But it seems silly to me to not have this info.174.16.211.34 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of biographical articles with no accurate birth date because many notable people have no biography or obituary where such details would be recorded. We would really need a reliable source for a birth date, rather than simply asking the person. The birth date would be nice, but it's essentially trivia and not worth worrying about. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're willing to accept self-published primary sources for the birth year, it's listed at http://11011110.livejournal.com/profile I don't know of a published source for my birth date, though, and don't particularly care to share it. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Year added back. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

@User:Cybercobra: You did notice that he said, "[I] don't particularly care to share it." Since this information is superfluous to the article and (I assume) he would prefer it not to be included, maybe it's best to not include his year of birth. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 05:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Note he said "date" in contrast to "year". Re-read his comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see... nevermind. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 06:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Selected publications

• Eppstein, David (1999). "Finding the k shortest paths". SIAM Journal on Computing. 28 (2): 652–673.
• D. Eppstein, Z Galil, GF Italiano, A Nissenzweig (1997). "Sparsification—a technique for speeding up dynamic graph algorithms". Journal of the ACM. 44 (5): 669–696.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• N. Amenta, M. Bern, D. Eppstein (1998). "The Crust and the beta-Skeleton: Combinatorial Curve Reconstruction". Graphical Models and Image Processing.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• M. Bern & D. Eppstein (1992). "Mesh generation and optimal triangulation". Technical Report CSL-92-1. Xerox PARC. Republished in D.-Z. Du & F.K. Hwang, ed. (1992). Computing in Euclidean Geometry. World Scientific. pp. 23–90.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by At-par (talk • contribs)

I have reverted[3] the removal of selected publication list from the article. It is a very well established convention to include selected publ lists in WP articles about academics. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of minor corrections

I see someone just removed the NSF Young Investigator Award from the infobox — probably this is an improvement as this is a minor award given to junior researchers and doesn't indicate very much notability. I've stepped down from the editorial board of JGAA (which has an article now: Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications) so it shouldn't say I'm still on it. Also it seems strange to mention the program committees only for one conference when I've been on quite a few others — probably it's better just to mention the ones I've been program chair or co-chair for: the ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry 2001 (co-chair), ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 2002, and the International Symposium on Graph Drawing 2009 (co-chair). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; article was was updated accordingly.David Koller (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability?

Yesterday, I wrote the following on the French editor who has now changed IPs.

Hello IP editor from France:

You slapped a notability-tag on the article on David Eppstein---immediately after user:David Eppstein removed a reference to a new article on automata, questioning notability (which means you need to provide a secondary reference to the article before restoring it). You have been reverted by me and another editor. Continued edit warring (under the appearance of retaliation) would be inappropriate.

Let me respond to your latest edit summary: As I wrote, you need only read the reviews on Mathematical Reviews to see notability; although the number of reviews is extraordinary imho, the content of those reviews establishes notability. A look on Google Scholar shows that the article on K shortest paths has over 500 citations, for example.

I am a statistician, and for me it is self-evident that when our leading journal JASA invites exactly one computer scientist to comment on an article about geometric nonparametic statistics, David, that singular invitation is a sign of his stature.

When I look at my copy of Hochbaum's book on approximation algorithms, I see that David is one of the contributors, and that is a very select group.

However, I could be wrong. There has been previous discussion of the notability of Eppstein, which is visible on the article page. All you need to do is revive that discussion and convince the other editors.

Sincerely, K.W.

He has again added a notability tag, without engaging the points raised by other editors.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You sound like the right person to add a bit more substance to the article! In addition to what you have said here, there are some notes above, and a little more flesh in the article would be appropriate and useful. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If the irritated editor calms down, I might be willing to augment the article, by citing the MR or Computing Reviews articles. However, I refuse to deal with retaliatory editing. There needs to be an immediate cease of personal attacks and an immediate cease of description of editing behavior of user:David Eppstein on this talk page (particularly regarding the cellular automata article), first.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I slapped a notability-tag on the article on David Eppstein immediately after user:David Eppstein removed a reference to a new article on cellular automata questioning notability, for the simple reason that when I looked who was the person that has claimed that the reference I was adding was not notable enough turns out to lack of notability to have such a Wikipedia article. From the one hand Eppstein supports his own notability by directing the course of his own Wikipedia article when involves himself in the discussion page of his artice even when the notability issue has been recurrently raised by several other people with no consequence at hotel (perhaps because people like you immediately reverse any legitimate step to take a further step and let people to decide before basically banning me and writing me on my talk page). I am not driven by vengeance but by consistency and fairness not only to me but to all people that have better resum'es but not even have a Wikipedia article nor such a relevant and long article. If user:David Eppstein thinks that mentioning a paper published in a respectable journal which is extremely relevant to a section of a Wikipedia article about the topic but his Wikipedia article is completely biased towards the subjective judgment then I think there is a conflict of interest. But a second conflict of interest us that user:David Eppstein has repeatedly said in several places that Wolfram's classes are ill defined (which he clearly has managed to state it in the article section even though this is not a generalized concern but his own opinion). Yet this new published paper shows that an objective measure is capable of classifying cellular automata exactly into Wolfram's 4 classes with no human intervention, which user:David Eppstein claims is not notable enough (unlike the journal opinion). user:David Eppstein reaction only a couple of hours later to revert my contribution and the article of Wikipedia suggesting he is a great scientist is at least shocking.

I don't consider that user:David Eppstein is more notable than thousands, if not more, of other professors and researchers with at least or much better CVs. Written reviews are not a criterion according to Wikipedia notability neither contributing to a book chapter. Just to mention an example, I just looked for a professor that has written about 7 books, published more than a hundred articles, yet has no Wikipedia article, and even if he someday had it will certainly not be that cared which is clearly an indication imho of user:David Eppstein intervention in his own Wikipedia article or people very close to him. To support this claim, you can see how many people that have contributed to user:David Eppstein's article has been suspected of suck puppetry and have been banned of Wikipedia, yet their 'contributions' remain in user:David Eppstein's article as completely objective, and any attempt to raise the concern of notability seems to trigger what you are doing now, which can be translated into not leaving anyone else to take any further step despite several people questioning notability.

I just deplore the attitude of authority of these kind of users when it comes to the notability of a published paper of someone else but not so when it comes to expose themselves. Simply the length and content of his article does not correspond to his place.

In summary, I think user:David Eppstein has a serious double conflict of interest when it comes to suggest or perform editions that validate or refute his beliefs, including what he thinks about cellular automata and of himself.

90.46.178.235 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Greg L.

Like many editors who are notable in the real world, Eppstein monitors his biographical article. For several years, he has restricted his editing there to commenting on the talk page, fully in compliance with with WP's COI policy (and also BLP policy), imho (but I haven't checked the history). I don't have the time or inclination to argue about comparative status of academics. It is sufficient that David Eppstein's article be brief and list his main accomplishments.

Please don't make personal attacks on other editors. David is not controlling anything.

You should ask for a second opinion at the computer science or mathematics projects, if you think that you are being treated unfairly by me (or by the other editor who reverted your edit).

As I have said twice, and now a third time, :-) , it usually suffices to find a published reliable article that supports your summary of the paper (that you previously inserted). In any event, you need to get consensus from the other editors on the talk page, when you add material to an article: The burden is on the editor adding new material, when there is a dispute. Would you please acknowledge that you understand this policy?

Thanks again for replying directly and honestly.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Kieffer, I didn't want to be mean. However, I still find the traces of bias even in your defense of this article. We are discussing this person notability and you start your defense by saying "Like many editors who are notable in the real world, Eppstein...". I can acknowledge that I understand the policy of new material and as you can see I didn't get into an edition war and let your reversal to happen without any further action. Perhaps you can acknowledge that you haven't been impartial at all when it comes to Eppstein matters, both in the other article and this one. I don't have the time to write the article of every professor and researcher that is as much or more notable than Eppstein but have none, but I can, however, express my disagreement when I see such an unfair difference where an editor is so active in Wikipedia that he can have a nice, long and cared Wikipedia article with the help of people that seemed to have bought the notability version of this respectable but not that notable professor that has influenced the direction of the article and can react so promptly to any change in a Wikipedia article that he seems to control such as the one on cellular automata. I have no time either to continue discussing the matter and convince everybody about it as you seem to suggest, so I leave my testimony here so that others continue the discussion. I don't know either what are you talking about calling me irritated and as if I had been editing any of the two pages in several occasions other than only the 2 times I did before. Again I think you are also trying to give the impression that you are the one making more sense and fighting an hectic user while it is actually the case that I think you are strangely over defending other editor arbitrary decisions even though at least 3 other users have backed my changes in both articles! 90.46.178.235 (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A minor factual correction here: this article existed prior to the time I became active on Wikipedia. So its existence has little or nothing to do with the fact that I am active here, as should have also been evident from the fact that it doesn't say anything about my Wikipedia activity. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think we *could* even talk about it, since we'd need a reliable source saying that you edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia isn't a reliable source...! CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-21/WikiProject report might plausibly count as a reliable source, but it doesn't actually say much that's relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately slapping {{notability}} on the biographies of those with whom someone has a scientific disagreement with (in Wikipedia or outside) has become a rather common occurrence. Even WP:ANI admins/regulars don't bat an eye to something like this anymore. WP:AGF and all that. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine in most cases they actually are acting in good faith -- they actually disagree with the person, and thus see their work as less than important, so deserving the tag. But in that general case -- and here as well -- that means that there's a COI so the person should not be involved despite their good intentions. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no scientific disagreement with Eppstein, my action is the result of consistency. He claims that a contribution backed from an article published in a journal is not that notable when I did a contribution to a scientific Wikipedia article, yet his Wikipedia article has notability concerns raised by others than me on several occasions. As I see no consistency between saying that something I did is not notable and the fact that in my opinion this editor is respectable but not at all that notable for such a Wikipedia article I didn't but take the step that many have suggested in this discussion page. That is to tag the article as possibly not notable and starting the discussion again on the basis of my arguments. However, I found that users like Kieffer not only immediately overreact in defense of Eppstein (an audacious Wikipedia editor, unlike me) and even blocks the page to avoid anyone out of their control to edit the page! I find it quite outrageous. Now, if your argument is that I shouldn't have edited the article on the basis of a disagreement with Eppstein because of a conflict of interest, then you are actually strengthening my own argument, which is that Eppstein shouldn't have acted against my contribution in the other Wikipedia article only because it is not compatible with his own subjective opinion (expressed elsewhere concerning the topic I was contributing to) by saying that the result of the paper I cited wasn't distinguished from any other on the subject, even though the paper is, as I have said before, an objective validation of the heuristic classification of Wolfram, with no precedent. Now, you may think that Eppstein opinion on the subject is not subjective as I claim, but the paper actually shows that believing that what I was talking about is subject to interpretation is wrong, because there is a hard measure saying the contrary and just published! (the paper I tried to introduce and which author recently gave a talk at my university) Anyway, I haven't insisted to include my contribution and I only reversed a reversal to my contribution once, so this overreaction makes things even more suspicious, perhaps not only about Eppstein or Kieffer but the sometimes inequitable ways of Wikipedia with some dominating editors orchestrating things here and there. 90.46.178.235 (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Greg.

Please, can we stop talking about this. Background and motivations are not relevant, and this page should only be used to discuss improvements to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean they are not relevant to you? They are important to make the case of conflict of interest. And the discussion here is the issue of notability in case you think we are being distracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.178.235 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether they are relevant to Johnuniq, it's a question of whether they are relevant to this article talk page, which should only be about the content of the associated article. Since the article is not about my Wikipedia edits. and the article is also not about perceived conflicts of interest, they are off-topic for this talk page as well. If you insist on discussing my recent editing disagreement with you somewhere, you could try Talk:Cellular automaton or User talk:David Eppstein. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Once more user:David Eppstein trying to deviate the attention from the notability issue of his Wikipedia article. If I wanted to discuss the change I made to the other Wikipedia article I would, but I don't. If I gave details of what happened and how I got into this evident inconsistency of what it seems to be notable to you and perhaps others, is because I was asked to. The discussion here is, again, if this article deserves the prominent place it has, given the notability criteria of Wikipedia, the recurrent rising of the notability issue in this discussion page where anything said in this regard seems to be immediately banished. How better proof of your intervention and conflict of interest when you come here to tell what the discussion should be about (in particular if it is about deviating it from the discussion of your notability). 90.46.178.235 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg L., please read what we are telling you. This page is about the real world David Eppstein, the subject of this article.

Greg, (clarification 22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) if you want to complain about editor:David Eppstein, then) you must (22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) imho) should complain elsewhere, e.g. on the talk page of User:David Eppstein. You should consider whether anybody had endorsed anything you have written here or elsewhere, before investing more time on this. I suggested that you take some time off for your own good.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the history of this article and at least half of it has been written by the user user:David Eppstein himself! Acknowledge there is a serious issue here and that it is outrageous to apply double standards. user:David Eppstein should stop intervening in Wikipedia articles to impose his way and opinions. To mention one of his many edits to his own Wikipedia article there is: 21:19, 21 August 2006 David Eppstein (talk | contribs) (1,333 bytes) (Fill out a little more detail using the page for Paul_Dourish as a model). In multiple occasions he has added categories, reversed other people's contributions, added his Erdos number, references, links, etc. See Revision as of 17:37, 19 June 2006 and you will see how user:David Eppstein has directed his Wikipedia article himself. The version as of 17:37, 19 June 2006 is much more appropriate for what I would think should be a Wikipedia article of an ordinary professor lucky to have a Wikipedia article for himself. If you want me to post more details please express yourselves. Stop protecting a Wikipedia editor in exchange of perhaps his support to direct the pages that you may want to influence too, if that is the case. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia and of an ethical conduct. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Greg,

You are welcome to suggest improvements to this article here.

However, you seem to want to to delete this article (as lacking notability), rather than want to improve it. You might ask the BLP project for a second opinion, given that nobody has supported your questioning whether Eppstein meets the notability standard (here).

If you wish to continue to allege conflict-of-interest violations, you may wish to consider the COI noticeboard.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer, I am surprised, you are supposed to be the knowledgeable in these Wikipedia matters yet you don't realize that improving Wikipedia can also mean merging or deleting unjustified articles by signaling conflicts of interest, asking a user to stop editing his own Wikipedia article and enforcing his opinions here and there as it seems to be the case. I'm surprised to read that you say nobody else agrees with me, you should read above the several people signaling the lack of notability and by even looking at the article history (that you seem to be ignoring again as if I had said nothing!)! and your own several successful attempts to avoid the inevitable (that people would find out that this is an autobiography protected by friendly editors). I may not be able to go ahead (but if I find time I will) but at least I'm leaving testimony of the behavior of Eppstein (that I think has been proposed as an administrator?? outrageous... I hope it is not the case) and your own attitude regarding this subject (acting as if it was me who were doing something wrong after all this time rather than Eppstein himself claiming in several occasions that he has nothing to do when I have just proven that he has basically designed his own autobiography here). Others may want to discuss further and take further action. You are welcome to explain how a user that writes half or more of his Wikipedia article does not deserve a word, some kind of warning at least, and several preventing tags to be shown on top of this article warning people about it (and hence improving the article itself by not giving an impression that is not the case, i.e. that this person is not as notable as the article evidently is meant to suggest). 90.46.37.131 (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone is confused here, and it might be me. I see no evidence that Eppstein has done any significant editing of this bio about him. How about you offer a sampling of specific content, added by Eppstein that you find objectionable? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomruen, it is not my purpose to make more damage to Eppstein's image after his acknowledging of his prominent intervention in his own Wikipedia article, you can digg into the article history and find for yourself. I copied/pasted the specific edit made by Eppstein in which he dramatically changes the face of his own article. Just to mention an example, you will find that Eppstein reversed some suggested edits when someone tried to soften the claim that Eppstein was "best known for XXX" in order to keep the "best known" message, evidently designing the way in which the article seems to acknowledge his reputation n the way Eppstein thought was the best. Again, I don't want to damage Eppstein his image more. I'm glad to let people know about this, that he has acknowledged and that, perhaps, he (and hopefully his friends, e.g. Kieffer) will substantially change their ways and tone. They are not dealing with stupid people even if you think to have a lot of control by having editor friends and treating people as if they were retarded. Kieffer's attitude has actually damaged more Eppstein's image more than anything because his attitude has triggered all this. Sometimes it is not about control, it is about information. Lesson: more humility Wikipedia editors. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You say "I don't want to damage Eppstein", but all I see is an anonymous editor (with an anonymous reputation) worried about something very small, and in no danger of harming anyones reputation. Again, name specific contents in the current that are questionable, or you're not saying anything at all to anyone but yourself. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Tomruen, notice I said "I don't want to damage *more* Eppstein's image" more than what he and Kieffer have already done (for starters, by unethically writing his own autobiography). Wikipedia policies do not consider that small someone manipulating his page and others minds to protect a page. I'm sorry, but since you are answering to me I doubt I am only talking to myself. I'm sure a lot of people will also read what I've written and I don't even need to have a Wikipedia user name to do so when I am only signaling facts that anyone can simply verify by looking at the article history. Good luck next time. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a witch-hunt to me, blind and intent on finding a scapegoat. I see only that you are very interested in showing Eppstein is unethical, rather than interest in the content of this bio article. Somehow if you can discredit Eppstein as a corrupt editor, then you'd be free to discount your previous conflict? I only responded because I didn't understand, and I still don't. Why not just let go? Stay if you care about this article's accuracy. Talk elsewhere if you're interested in your original material that brought you here. Eppstein had his learning curve on his ethics and his lessons seem done. Your lessons seem very much in progress. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It is true that several years ago, before I learned better, I made some substantive edits to the article. The only such change I can recall making at all recently is one where someone added an incorrect and unsourced statement of my religion and I reverted it per WP:BLP, along with performing similar reverts on several other BLP articles. I don't see why I should have to wait for someone else to make an uncontroversial edit of that type. However, for anything that could possibly be controversial such as the recent notability tagging my policy is to consider it to be someone else's problem and not make any changes myself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We are making progress, at least now Eppstein addresses the topic I'm bringing up unlike Kieffer that takes me as if I had Parkinson in complete denial... Thanks Eppstein for accepting that you have made substantive edits to your Wikipedia article, at least half of it from my point of view but likely much more. I recognize that you have contained yourself more recently, but perhaps because the page is already of your taste, what else could you ask, and you still intervene a lot in the discussion. Since Eppstein has made an honest move here I want also to say that I am not necessarily against the content of his article but of his attitude and the result of such a tailored self written article. A biased article is not only one that has wrong information in it but that gives a wrong impression, the length of his article and the care with which it has been edited all this time makes people believe that Eppstein is much more notable than what he actually is, and therefore his claims and edits in Wikipedia (and outside of Wikipedia) are also taken as if he had more authority than he actually does. He has built quite a reputation out of this article written by himself both inside Wikipedia an outside (without neglecting that it is certainly true that he is a respectable professor/researcher as many others). The issues are many fold though and it is not for free that the Wikipedia policy and the most basic ethics strongly suggest not to act in such a way, specially when it is about applying double standards banning other people's contributions in Wikipedia on the basis of notability. I have raised the topic in COI and I'm not expecting it to progress (unless you insist) because those defending are much more prompt than those that have raised this issue before. I'm not willing to waste more time on this. At least, however, now people will know and will be informed and be able to make their own judgment. I cannot say Eppstein has been well intended, but I think he has already been honest, don't spoil that by saying that you have a policy when editing your article perhaps you have now but you hadn't before. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A 2006 edit by David is roughly 5 years old. You may have noticed that many editors have since edited this page.

IMHO, this is a retaliatory editor who is violating many WP policies, certainly AGF and NPA, and possibly BLP, who is not availing himself of appropriate fora for getting second-opinions regarding numerous, allegations of bad-faith. I think it's time to end this disruptive episode, and I'll look for an appropriate noticeboard. (My experience is limited, and I would appreciate a suggestion from a more experienced editor.) and this IP editor has raised a ruckus at the COI noticeboard, and will get the attention he has craved.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Eppstein (who you so friendly call David) has edited his page in at least 10 occasions and the last one was not in 2006 but this very year. He of course started in 2006, thanks for the info, and with the help of you et al. he continued doing so. Go ahead and proceed as you may want, who are you shooting at? I haven't said but true facts that the user has already acknowledged yet you incredibly insist on attacking me when it is not me who has acted in bad faith and very unethically, you should be taking care of all these bad faith edits, I have made non to his self written Wikipedia article, so I don't see what is your point. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point in continuing to participate in this discussion here. If you want to discuss specific changes to the content of the article, please go ahead and do so without me. If you have concrete suggestions regarding my present and/or future behavior, and you have any interest in getting me to read it and respond, take it to my user talk page. Otherwise this is pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is simple and professional, I am talking about the content of the article, content of this article has been written by you, which is a clear violation of the ethical procedures of Wikipedia. Period. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Greg, Wikipedia prohibits personal attacks on talk pages of articles and of editors. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the most common mistakes that people make when receiving criticism from others is they take it as a personal affront or as a demeaning personal attack. I have not but pointed out with Eppstein's own acknowledgment that he has substantially edited his own Wikipedia article and directed the way he wants his article to be done, even though he is also categorized as Notable Wikipedian, which should mean that he acts in good faith and with the highest ethical standards. Eppstein may be notable or not, but people can now judge by themselves and see how unethically this has been done. That's it, no personal attacks, just go and look for yourself the history of the article. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The comments by 90.46.x.x are not justified, as I have shown in detail at the COI noticeboard (permalink). 90.46.x.x is abusing the open nature of Wikipedia by making wild assertions without evidence, and without any embarrassment concerning the proximity of the unsubstantiated claims to a disagreement at cellular automaton where David Eppstein reverted an edit by 90.46.x.x. Any further inappropriate claims (comments unrelated to improving this article, or attacks on an editor) should be reverted without response per WP:DENY. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think that the user under the IP 90.46.x.x was making a fair point and I think the reaction of some people, including the ban imposed to him is an overreaction to the clear fact that Johnuniq has actually proven in the COI noticeboard (permalink) and contrary to his own conclusion, that David Eppstein has written large chunks of his own Wikipedia article, something strongly unadvised by Wikipedia, and contrary to the expected behaviour of an admin. Independently of whether Johnuniq believes the changes and additions of David Eppstein made to his own Wikipedia article were neutral or not, which I personally believe are not neutral, given that people may or may not be interested by the 'neutral' facts that he introduced in advantage of people that refrain from doing the same. 95.48.70.154 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the first line of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David Eppstein article." If you want to discuss the behaviour of an individual person, it should happen at the COI noticeboard or elsewhere, not here. Jowa fan (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In the COI noticeboard (permalink) 2 comments in favor of the COI issue, including last mine, have been reverted. The last of mine was reverted by talk. Eppstein seems to benefit evidently of a special treatment given his admin status and the support of other editors/admins, otherwise I cannot explain how a user that is pointing out a clear COI is blocked and how possibly comments in the COI noticeboard in favor of raising the COI issue are deleted but those in defense of Eppstein are kept.

I think this is just a misunderstanding about the right procedure for posting your comments, nothing more sinister. It's really important to read any messages that people leave on your talk page. I hope we can get this sorted out in 24 hours' time when the block expires. Please accept my apologies for any confusion. Jowa fan (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I wrote this note on Piotr/User:95.48.70.154's talk page, where he promptly deleted it.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk page of David Eppstein

Hello!

As you know from having read the talk page of David Eppstein, the purpose of the talk page is to discuss improving the article. Please review the WP policy on talk pages before writing on that talk page (or anywhere) again.

The talk page for David Eppstein was abused recently by another IP editor, who launched personal attacks on User:David_Eppstein, particularly questioning the good faith of other editors.

• There has been a complete review of the conflict-of-interest allegations at the COI noticeboard, and there is consensus that no COI violations warrant any comment or action: Several of us have commented that User:David Eppstein's edits are in compliance with the COI policy on Wikipedia.
• At the COI noticeboard, there has been strong criticism of the other IP editor's behavior, particularly the appearance of retaliation against and harassment of User:David Eppstein.

Given this environment, you should make further COI charges only at the COI noticeboard and certainly not on the talk page of the article, as you have read already and as you have been firmly reminded on that talk page. I repeat that recent allegations against User:David Eppstein have been condemned as retaliation and as harassment. Further, given the prohibition on using COI and other noticeboards to harass or retaliate against editors, you should be very careful about repeating past complaints without offering new evidence.

(It may be that you have already committed sufficiently many (or sufficiently severe) violations of WP policies that your non-vandalism edits also warrant a block, of course.)

I hope that you will abide by WP policies and contribute to articles when you return.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. I didn't mean to mess with the noticeboard. I was obviously not purposely vandalizing it but trying to express myself. The problem was the permalink above. I guess for experienced editors and admins this is something easy to do and admin opinions and acts will evidently be overrepresented compared to what a user with no experience but with a different opinion to the average admin can do or say. I was quiet surprised (and upset I have to say) about this 24 hr. block because of an unintended mistake that I could have understood if explained before blocking me. Given that you think that talking about a COI issue and the length of this Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the improvement of the article I refrain from saying anything else. Obviously this article is overimproved already, no need to discuss how to improve it even more. The article doesn't seem to correspond to a professor but to a notable Wikipedian. Notice that the following Field medalists have Wikipedia articles as long (or even shorter!) than Eppstein's: Elon Lindenstrauss, Andrei Okounkov, Laurent Lafforgue, Vladimir Voevodsky. Notice there is no personal attack or harassment as I think Eppstein may certainly be just a good professor. Just to clear things up: when Wikipedia COI policy unadvices one to write one's own article it does not tell anything about whether you are supposed to add something that someone else may qualify as neutral or not as it has been evaluated in the COI noticeboard. The COI issue is the fact that you cannot write your own biography disregarding what you may tell or not, because obviously you are not in the position of thinking of what readers may or may not want to know about yourself. Otherwise the Wikipedia COI policy would only advice not to add but neutral things of oneself, something that does not. If this is considered normal behaviour according to some editors I think it is legitimate to ask how these editors behave in the general case, when they impose opinions or perhaps even ask to block users at will (not me, but the other user discussing this very topic). It is not only about Eppstein (nor nothing personal against him) but of the ways and good manners of Wikipedia. 95.48.70.154 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC) To sum up, I think this self writing behaviour should be discouraged and not the other way around: that people pointing this out seem to be automatically been designated as harassers and eventually censured and blocked. 95.48.70.154 (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes,everyone agrees that years ago Eppstein directly edited his biography and he should not have. But he has not continued to do so after learning that it was inappropriate having learned better. Case closed. You on the other hand are CONTINUING to beat your dead horse apparently NOT having learned the lesson that it is NOT appropriate for you to continue to make grand unsubstantiated personal attacks.

If you see anything specific that remains in the article that appears to be unsourced, inappropriate (self) promotion, then please identify your specific concern. If you continue your general rant you will be blocked again as you have been warned [4]. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Professor David Eppstein is surely a respected Professor in the area of Computer Science. This is undeniable. But I do not think he may have such a lengthy article in the wikipedia (or even an article) when other Professors with greater contributions such as S. Arora, J. Hastad, U. Feige, C. Papadimitriou, S. Goldwasser, P. Seymour have more summarized articles, or even others no article at all (take a look to some of the people who have won the Fulkerson Prize, for example). Again, in order not to be misunderstood, Professor Eppstein has, surely, a heavy research background, but much less than the background of others who don't happen to be wikipedia editors, of course. I think this is an issue who, himself, should have solved by asking the deletion of the article and which he could have achieved, if he really wanted of course. This article's presence, actually harms Wikipedia's reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathSm67 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly all the people you mention merit having good articles here. Is there something stopping you from improving what we have on them? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping me from improving their articles, since the articles are OK. Yours is not OK. It should be a much more summarized one or even not existing here, compared to those articles. And for one more time, this does not mean that you have no research contribution. It means that we should write articles based on each person's achievements and contribution. I am sure you agree on that and it would be brave on your behalf to admit that the specific article is not worth yours.JonathSm67 (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So... "this article's presence, actually harms Wikipedia's reliability"? Seriously? No... really? That's a completely absurd argument to try to make. It seems like some anonymous coward has been trying to pester David ever since he reverted an addition to cellular automaton almost a month ago. Don't let him bother you David! Stay strong! :-) Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 03:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, thick skin is a necessity in academia. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually believe that many of the people who attacked the specific user in the past were cowards. Honestly. I am not one of them. What you do not understand (both of you) is that each scientist's article should depend on his/her contribution. I never said that the specific user has not done research (he has done and of course much more than Justin W Bieber, sorry Smith). I am saying that he should have a much more summarized article here. JonathSm67 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"Summarized article". Try piping your prose through Google translate a few times to disguise yourself better.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with "summarized article"? Let me clarify some things:

I am not any of the guys who previously attacked the specific user (some of them were actually cowards,I agree with all of you). I think the specific user is a notable scientist (honestly), but not so much as this extensive article suggests. Even Fulkerson prize winners do not have wikipedia articles. I think that some of his friends in wikipedia (like some guy Kiefer Wolfowitz) try to be good with him (I would do the same with friends of mine, but maybe not so much). Finally, I don't think I have contributed to any harassment. If you think so, please clarify that. JonathSm67 (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:TALK. If you like, imagine that life is unfair and Wikipedia more so, however you would understand that this conversation cannot continue if you were to consider how article talk pages would look if there were not strong oppostion to soapboxing and general opinion swapping. If you want to talk about an alleged COI, do so at WP:COIN. If you want to talk about how Wikipedia needs to be improved, do so at WP:VPR. Do not make any other comment on this page unless it is connected with proposing an improvement to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Broken-record harassment

Editors at the COI noticeboard labelled the ongoing allegations against User:David Eppstein as harassment, and suggested that we just remove further personal attacks.

Unless there is an objection by a registered editor or by an IP editor with significant contributions to article creation, I intend to remove the latest allegations and attacks. Enough is enough!

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm raising the "Bat signal".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

quack quack quack quack. Seconded. Active Banana (^bananaphone 04:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that enough is enough, but I'd like to see the relevant process documented in plain English. Would someone be kind enough to explain which "bat signal" applies here, and perhaps link to the relevant COIN discussion? I'd be happy to see many of the above comments deleted. Jowa fan (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor link request

Could someone please wikilink Jean-Claude Falmagne in the "Books" section? Thanks. While you're at it, it might be a good idea to check Falmagne's article for neutrality — it looks ok to me (and I am certain he passes WP:PROF) but from the article creator's name I suspect there may be something of a conflict of interest there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a long time and nobody's done anything with this one. But I have another minor request: could someone add Category:Graph drawing people, please? Thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I linked Jean-Claude Falmagne and added the category of graph-drawing people.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Cruft

I don't really mind the journal editorial boards, graduate fellowship, and junior faculty research award being listed — they're all factual — but if this were an article I were editing about someone I didn't know, I probably wouldn't include them. They're the sort of thing most research faculty do, and don't really say anything significant about me. My preference would be to cut them out, leaving only the conference chair gigs and the ACM fellowship, which are more significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you Ok if the Awards section will be:

In 2011, he was named an ACM Fellow for his contributions to graph algorithms and computational geometry.[10]

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.26 (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Added family information

That's it. Sans Nom Reeves (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this information is necessary, helpful to readers, or even adequately sourced. See WP:NOTDIR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, your original biography section is self-sourced for the most part (your own CV), and other articles about people of interest have this family information anyways. Also, because you're the person and the contributor, I argue WP:NPOV and that your family information is actually valuable. Sans Nom Reeves (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How is information about his wife and kids relevant to the article? Furthermore, if the subject of article would prefer that his family not be listed, then they shouldn't be. Per WP:NPF only material relevant to his notability should be included. Justin W Smith (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and am glad that such information has been removed. C.f., Svante Janson. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

His account on wikiproject

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the article, that he's also User:David_Eppstein?--Dixtosa (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's true, obviously, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources that mention this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL --MathsPoetry (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)