You deserve this edit

  The Special Barnstar
For your cooperation, for the way you conduct yourself, for your readiness to put in that extra bit jojo@nthony (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tachs, thanks! Much appreciated! Solomon7968 16:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Erdos Numbers edit

You seem to be going around main articles removing low Erdos numbers as non-relevant trivia and then demanding that we source each occurrence as relevant. However, we already do by linking to the Erdos Number wikipedia page, just look under its impact section to see that it is important to the math community. I am not going to get into an edit war with you by reverting your changes again, but I think you should take some time to familiarize yourself with the math community before going on this particular clean up. Good luck --DFRussia (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DFRussia At least one active math editor (and admin) David Eppstein agrees with my edits. Since it involves many articles I propose you open a new discussion at WT:MATH. I am already familiar with the page(s) you mentioned. Solomon7968 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Solomon7968 has recently renewed his campaign to remove all mention of Erdős numbers from lots of articles. Many people consider the Erdos number to be significant. I urge Solomon7968 to slow down, at least until there is more discussion of this sweeping change. Taking him at his word, I have opened a discussion of the issue at WT:MATH. I would like to see what other editors think about this.--Toploftical (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom elections are now open! edit

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year, Solomon! edit

 
 
(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016 edit

The Signpost: 13 January 2016 edit

The Signpost: 20 January 2016 edit

The Signpost: 27 January 2016 edit

The Signpost: 03 February 2016 edit

The Signpost: 10 February 2016 edit

The Signpost: 17 February 2016 edit

The Signpost: 24 February 2016 edit

The Signpost: 02 March 2016 edit

The Signpost: 09 March 2016 edit

The Signpost: 16 March 2016 edit

The Signpost: 23 March 2016 edit

The Signpost: 1 April 2016 edit

The Signpost: 14 April 2016 edit

The Signpost: 24 April 2016 edit

The Signpost: 2 May 2016 edit

The Signpost: 17 May 2016 edit

Proposed deletion of Mortimer Spiegelman Award edit

 

The article Mortimer Spiegelman Award has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG with no sources and lots of redlinks.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 May 2016 edit

The Signpost: 05 June 2016 edit

Disambiguation link notification for June 13 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Guardian 100 best novels
added links pointing to Ulysses, Scoop, Kim, Kidnapped, Emma, Babbitt, Joy in the Morning, The Maltese Falcon, The Sign of Four, Vanity Fair, Peter Carey, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Sybil, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and Tom Jones

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Guardian 100 best novels edit

I have removed the list from the article. Lists of this type that make value judgements are subject to copyright, and cannot be reproduced here. If creativity has gone into producing a list by selecting which facts are included or in which order they are listed, then reproducing the list may constitute a copyright violation. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Diannaa, The addition was in accordance with well established previous articles. See The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time, Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century, The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time each of which is basically a list of 100 books. What about them? Solomon7968 05:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we should be hosting those lists either. See also Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, and The Greatest Canadian (which like many other list articles shows only the top ten). I am going to restore it for now as I am going on holiday for a week and will investigate further when I get back. I'll let you know what I find out. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 15 June 2016 edit


List of Fellow of the ACM edit

Please format as we do a list--one item per line. Paragraph format is good for most articles, but not for lists. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

DGG This list follows the example of a earlier similar ICM speakers list. If you mean putting those in a sortable table format then I disagree of its usefulness as it basically mounts to adding a lot of useless wikicode. The list is already one item per line in its wikicode format. I suggest if you have further concerns you post in the article talk page where others (such as David Eppstein) can contribute. I apologize for editing your post but please use the preview button more often. Solomon7968 09:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
The problem isn't wikicode, which can be as long as necessary to get the right appearance. The problem is the readability of the display. If there is another list done in the same pattern I shall format it according to our normal standards also. A run-on single paragraph is unreadable for more than 4 or 5 items, and we always use some sort of a list or table--my own preference is a plain list- unless there is some real reason it needs to be sortable. I did hope you'd see this yourself and fix it yourself. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Incurable diseases are not always fatal edit

Incurable disease should not redirect to terminal illness. A terminal illness is a disease that you're dying from – and dying soon, not decades from now. It's not merely a disease that's permanent. As the article says, "Terminal illness is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and that is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient within a short period of time". It's not enough to be incurable; it must also be killing you.

Type 1 diabetes is "incurable", but not "terminal". All genetic disorders are "incurable", but most aren't "terminal". Herpes is "incurable" but almost never kills anyone. Therefore, redirecting "incurable disease" to "terminal illness" is factually wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nomination of Mortimer Spiegelman Award for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mortimer Spiegelman Award is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Spiegelman Award until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 04 July 2016 edit

The Signpost: 21 July 2016 edit

The Signpost: 04 August 2016 edit

The Signpost: 18 August 2016 edit

Disambiguation link notification for September 3 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Suitable Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 06 September 2016 edit

The Signpost: 29 September 2016 edit

The Signpost: 14 October 2016 edit

The Signpost: 4 November 2016 edit

Precious anniversary edit

Three years ago ...
 
learning
... you were recipient
no. 664 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 4 November 2016 edit

The Signpost: 22 December 2016 edit

The Signpost: 17 January 2017 edit

Nomination of Alexander Barvinok for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alexander Barvinok is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Barvinok until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. XXN, 15:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 6 February 2017 edit

The Signpost: 27 February 2017 edit

Copyright problem: The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English edit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/17/the-100-best-novels-written-in-english-the-full-list, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Jo-Jo Eumerus, This was discussed earlier (with Diannaa) in this talk page, see #The Guardian 100 best novels. Solomon7968 16:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, yes, but it doesn't seem like the issue was resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I have no objection with the article getting deleted but that means we should also get rid of similar articles. You added the template to the Crime Novels article but not to the Le Monde article. I propose you do it, it seems a waste of time to continue with this "investigation". Solomon7968 01:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking more of removing the list and perhaps leave the article. Also, which Le Monde article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
See the discussion above, Le Monde's 100 Books of the Century. Solomon7968 12:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 9 June 2017 edit

Nomination for deletion of Template:Diseases of poverty in popular culture edit

 Template:Diseases of poverty in popular culture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 23 June 2017 edit

The Signpost: 15 July 2017 edit

Satyendra Nath Bose: "sovereign" instead of "independent" Bharat edit

On the page Satyendra Nath Bose you have reverted my change from "independent" to "sovereign." If you can please explain the nature of dependence the country had, I would appreciate it.

Thanks.

Shantnup (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Shantnup It is pointless to complain about an edit which occurred 2 years ago, use the talk page instead so that other interested editors can join in. For starters we don't use "Bharat" (a non English term) in the English wiki as I mentioned then in the edit summary. "Independent" vs "sovereign" was only tangentially related to the reversion. Solomon7968 04:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 5 August 2017 edit

The Signpost: 6 September 2017 edit

The Signpost: 25 September 2017 edit

The Signpost: 23 October 2017 edit

Nomination of Barun K. De for deletion edit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barun K. De is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barun K. De until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 November 2017 edit

ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit

Hello, Solomon7968. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 18 December 2017 edit

The Signpost: 16 January 2018 edit

The Signpost: 5 February 2018 edit

The Signpost: 20 February 2018 edit

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018 edit

The Signpost: 26 April 2018 edit

The Signpost: 24 May 2018 edit

The Signpost: 29 June 2018 edit

The Signpost: 31 July 2018 edit

The Signpost: 30 August 2018 edit

The Signpost: 1 October 2018 edit

The Signpost: 28 October 2018 edit

ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit

Hello, Solomon7968. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 December 2018 edit

The Signpost: 24 December 2018 edit

List of Wiley book series edit

Something seems to have gone wrong there, this is just word salad... --Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was intentional as I lack an (semi-)automatic tool to complete the wiki linking of the article. I did notified David Eppstein (he completed my wiki linking in List of Fellows of the Association for Computing Machinery) minutes after creating the article as I believe at least one of the series would interest him. You do a lot of Journal editing here, don't you; why don't you also try improving this article. FWIW I just started another CUP article which may interest you. Solomon7968 16:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not sre such a tool exists, I don't have one either in any case. And wikilinks is the least of the problems of this unformatted salad. Did you look at it after you hit "save"? --Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • That CUP "list" is the same mess of unformatted word salad. In either cases, I'm not even sure that we should have such (somewhat promotional) lists. These articles almost qualify for speedy deletion (as a test page. --Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I now also see what you mean about adding wikilinks. What makes you think that even a single one of these book series is notable? --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I want all public domain CUP books on Wikisource; All CUP series (let alone books) are probably not notable but when you say even a single one for the World's 2nd largest university press then I think there is something seriously wrong with WP criteria which we need to amend. And for Wiley there are only 47 series and they are comparable to say Springer's Graduate Texts in Mathematics which every math grad student knows about if they want to be taken seriously. If you don't believe me ask someone say DGG or DE. Solomon7968 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • It's not enough that "every math grad" knows something, we go by reliable sources. And creating a forest of redlinks, without any idea whether any of those redlinks could conceivably become an article, is not really very helpful. And what happens on Wikisource is irrelevant here (does CU really have "public domain" books?) --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Springer's GTM would be easy to source if someone has MathSciNet access (DE?). I don't know how we can source other disciplines. However deletion is certainly not the way forward. WE have many editors creating articles on Pulitzer winning History books. If they can be notable why can't be the related History series? And yes CUP has public domain books, search Cambridge County Geographies on Wikisource (my creation). Solomon7968 18:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • If a book wins the Pulitzer, then it means that there are sources about the book. And I'm baffled by your Wikisource link. That's a list of links to WP articles. If I click the EL to the CUP website, I see a lists of books that can be bought. I don't see anything PD here. What am I missing? --Randykitty (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 January 2019 edit

Disambiguation link notification for February 6 edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Francis Wall Oliver (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Robert Brown, John Hill, William Griffith and William Hooker

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 February 2019 edit

The Signpost: 31 March 2019 edit

The Signpost: 30 April 2019 edit

The Signpost: 31 May 2019 edit

The June 2019 Signpost is out! edit

The Signpost: 31 July 2019 edit

The Signpost: 30 August 2019 edit

The Signpost: 30 September 2019 edit

The Signpost: 31 October 2019 edit

IP edit

Berean Hunter can you run a check on my account to confirm that I am not Special:Contributions/103.24.84.0/24 whom you blocked. I can't edit right now. Solomon7968 11:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

IP block exempt edit

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for three months. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2019 election voter message edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2019 edit

The Signpost: 27 December 2019 edit

The Signpost: 27 January 2020 edit

The Signpost: 1 March 2020 edit

The Signpost: 29 March 2020 edit

The Signpost: 26 April 2020 edit

The Signpost: 31 May 2020 edit

The Signpost: 28 June 2020 edit

The Signpost: 2 August 2020 edit

The Signpost: 30 August 2020 edit

The Signpost: 27 September 2020 edit

The Signpost: 27 September 2020 edit

The Signpost: 1 November 2020 edit

Precious anniversary edit

Precious
 
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2020 edit

The Signpost: 28 December 2020 edit

The Signpost: 31 January 2021 edit

The Signpost: 28 February 2021 edit

The Signpost: 28 March 2021 edit

The Signpost: 25 April 2021 edit

The Signpost: 25 April 2021 edit

The Signpost: 27 June 2021 edit

The Signpost: 25 July 2021 edit

The Signpost: 29 August 2021 edit

The Signpost: 26 September 2021 edit

The Signpost: 31 October 2021 edit

Precious anniversary edit

Precious
 
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 November 2021 edit

The Signpost: 28 December 2021 edit

The Signpost: 30 January 2022 edit

The Signpost: 27 February 2022 edit

The Signpost: 27 March 2022 edit

The Signpost: 24 April 2022 edit

The Signpost: 29 May 2022 edit

The Signpost: 26 June 2022 edit

The Signpost: 1 August 2022 edit

The Signpost: 31 August 2022 edit

The Signpost: 30 September 2022 edit

The Signpost: 31 October 2022 edit

The Signpost: 28 November 2022 edit

The Signpost: 1 January 2023 edit

The Signpost: 16 January 2023 edit

The Signpost: 4 February 2023 edit

The Signpost: 20 February 2023 edit

The Signpost: 9 March 2023 edit

The Signpost: 20 March 2023 edit

The Signpost: 03 April 2023 edit

The Signpost: 26 April 2023 edit

The Signpost: 8 May 2023 edit

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed edit

Hello Solomon7968! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MusikBot II talk 17:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 22 May 2023 edit

The Signpost: 5 June 2023 edit

The Signpost: 19 June 2023 edit

ITN recognition for K. R. Parthasarathy (probabilist) edit

On 26 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article K. R. Parthasarathy (probabilist), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 3 July 2023 edit

The Signpost: 17 July 2023 edit

The Signpost: 1 August 2023 edit

The Signpost: 15 August 2023 edit

The Signpost: 31 August 2023 edit

The Signpost: 16 September 2023 edit

The Signpost: 3 October 2023 edit

The Signpost: 23 October 2023 edit

The Signpost: 6 November 2023 edit

The Signpost: 20 November 2023 edit

The Signpost: 4 December 2023 edit

The Signpost: 24 December 2023 edit

The Signpost: 10 January 2024 edit

The Signpost: 31 January 2024 edit

The Signpost: 13 February 2024 edit

The Signpost: 2 March 2024 edit

The Signpost: 29 March 2024 edit

Page "Ubiratan D'Ambrosio edit

Dear Solomon, As I noticed in 'view history' on Ubiratan D'Ambrosio's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiratan_D%27Ambrosio), you were the first person to create the page. Am I correct? If so, I am here to kindly ask for your help. I have been trying to create a page since last year, for an also very important mathematics Educator, Ole SKovsmose, who was also a friend of D'Ambrosio. But I am having a lot of trouble with this, as you can see in this draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ole_Skovsmose). I made all changes that were suggested, but so far I have not been able to publish de article, as a new comment always arises. So, I ask if you would kindly share with me how you published Ubiratan D'Ambrosio article, so perhaps I can follow in your footsteps. I look forward to have you feedback. Best regards Daniela Bemdani (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

None of the editors who commented in the draft page is an expert on math education. Perhaps you can ask David Eppstein for an expert look on references as I believe SKovsmose to be notable as is the other Kenneth O. May Prize laureates (like Ubiratan D'Ambrosio). Solomon7968 04:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have written short biographies of some mathematics educators, but that doesn't make me an expert on mathematics education. All of my education expertise, such as it is, is in computer science.
My suggestion: trim back the parts that don't do anything to convince people of notability: the art, the flowery wording in the biography, the name-dropping, the long list of publications, the edited volumes, and the claims about the significance of his work supported only by citations to his own work. Cut them back hard. He does have highly-cited publications, probably enough for WP:PROF#C1, but it is going to be difficult to persuade a draft reviewer of that because they're not familiar with academics and there is no third-party publication saying that his work is very influential.
If you get advice to add more sources and more material, ignore it. It is usually bad advice. What drafts need is usually fewer sources and tighter wording, in order to concentrate only on the sources of the best quality and only on the claims found in those high quality sources.
Focus instead on: the 2010 festschrift [1] and what is said by others abovut Skovsmose in it. Publications by others that are blatantly about Skovsmose's work. And published reviews of his authored books. (Both of these second two points of focus can be found through [2].) If you focus the publication list only on authored books with long bulleted lists of reviews, WP:AUTHOR notability should be clear. If you mention the festschrift somewhere in a section towards the end of the article about recognition for his work, it should tell the story about how he is recognized by his peers. And if you trim all the editorialization from the remaining factual parts about his life and career, keeping them both concise and completely supported by third-party references, with no low-quality references (works by him instead of about him, web pages rather than publications, etc), there will be less motivation for reviewers to say "maybe he's notable but this draft is not ready" and decline it for that reason, and the dryness of those parts will make it harder for reviewers to get distracted by them and easier for them to find the other parts of the article, the festschrift and the publications by others that name-drop him in the title and the book reviews, that contribute more obviously to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 25 April 2024 edit