Erel Segal

Welcome!

2021-09

@Erel Segal: In your edit of the page "Integer Programming" on 4th November, 2020 at 17:06 - you mention that "Lenstra's algorithm implies that ILP is polynomial-time solvable also in the dual case, in which n is varying but m (the number of constraints) is constant." Can you add citation to prove this claim? To the best of my knowledge, it is valid only if m+||A|| is constant (Theorem 2, Ganian et al. "Solving integer linear programs by exploiting variable-constraint interactions: A survey." Algorithms 12.12 (2019): 248). If your claim is indeed correct, could you please add the relevant citation or proof to support it?

I took it from the paper I cited, reference [12] in that page. But maybe I misunderstood. If you think it is incorrect, then you can fix it according to the survey paper you mentioned. --Erel Segal (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Holes and topology

Hello, I redirected the page Hole (topology) that you created to homotopy group. The reason is that "hole" is not a standard notion in topology, and the content of the page was essentially duplicate with that of the page on homotopy groups. Best, jraimbau (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jean Raimbault: The notion of a "hole", as it appears in Jiri Matousek's book (which was my source for the hole page), is much simpler than that of a homotopy group. It does not require any knowledge of group theory. For laypeople, that just want an intuitive understanding of the concept, it is much more useful to have a page on a "hole", than to bring them into a page that requires a deep understanding of group theory. In any case, if you still think a page on "hole" is not justified, then I think it should at least appear as a sub-page with title "hole". Maybe homotopical connectivity is a better place for it. --Erel Segal (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Matoušek (and others) use the term "hole" loosely, and they do not give a formal definition for it. I don't think there ever has been a formal approach to the notion of hole that you propose that has been carried out independently of homotopy groups (and I personally feel that that the difficult part in the definition of those is the homotopy and not the group part). That's the main reason i don't think such an article is appropriate on wikipedia.

I'm not sure that redirecting as i did is the best solution though, you are welcome to discuss this on the main page of the wikiproject mathematics (i already launched a discussion a few days ago : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Hole). Best, jraimbau (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal Thank you for creating Homotopic connectivity.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Subdivision (simplicial complex). User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Optimal kidney exchange. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the article! Keep writing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the fixed-point computation page

Dear Dr. Segal, thanks for creating this exceptional article. It was very interesting and enlightening to learn more about Brouwer-fixed point theorem from the computational perspective. Saung Tadashi (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@Saung Tadashi: Thanks! --Erel Segal (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bin-packing with fragmentation (April 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bin-packing with fragmentation and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Erel Segal! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Multi-issue voting

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Multi-issue voting, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on School choice

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page School choice, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ordinal vs. cardinal utility

Template:Ordinal vs. cardinal utility has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Budget-proposal aggregation

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Budget-proposal aggregation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

CS1 error on Budget-proposal aggregation

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Budget-proposal aggregation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Participatory budgeting rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Facility location problem.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Optimal design

I have posted a question regarding the name change at the talk page of the article. Will Orrick (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Multi-issue voting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Local search.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Random utility model

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Random utility model, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Your edit to Draft:Random utility model has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Median voting rule

Hello, Erel Segal,

Thank you for creating Median voting rule.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is a very interesting subject and well-worthwhile for Wikipedia. However, there are entire sections that lack in-line citations. Consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, more in-line citations should be added.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Nolabob}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nolabob (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Median voting rule

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Median voting rule, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Your edit to Double auction has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interior-point method, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Potential function.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Fair random assignment

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fair random assignment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Strong Nash equilibrium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Regret-free mechanism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Regret-free mechanism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Participatory budgeting experiments moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Participatory budgeting experiments, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) As written, the article contains too many statements and claims that are not supported by inline citations. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mccapra I do not understand your claim. There are 10 references, and every single paragraph in the writing is supported by an online citation. Can you please show me a single statement that is not supported by an online citation? --Erel Segal (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

” They had 180 subjects that are students from Zurich universities. Each subject had to evaluate projects in six input formats: unrestricted approval, 5-approval, 5-approval with ranking, cumulative with 5 points, cumulative with 10 points, cumulative with 10 points over 5 projects. The subjects were then asked which input format was most easy, most expressive, and most suitable. Unrestricted approval was conceived most easy, but least expressive and least suitable; in contrast, 5-approval with ranking, and cumulative with 10 points over 5 projects, were found significantly more expressive and more suitable. Suitability was affected mainly by expressiveness; the effect of easiness was negligible. They also found out that the project ranking in unrestricted approval was significantly different than in the other 5 input formats. Approval voting encouraged voters to disperse their votes beyond their immediate self-interest. This may be considered as altruism, but it may also mean that this format does not represent their preferences well enough.”

@Mccapra This is explaind in reference [6] which is cited at the beginning of the same paragraph, near the authors' names.

” They particularly compared the simple Greedy algorithm (which assumes cost-based satisfaction) with Equal Shares (assuming cardinality-based satisfaction). They found out that Greedy outcomes are highly sensitive to the input format used and the fraction of the population that participates. In contrast, MES outcomes are not sensitive to the type of voting format used. These outcomes are stable even when only 25–50% of the population participates in the election.”

@Mccapra Similarly, this is explaind in reference [4] which is cited at the beginning of the same paragraph, near the authors' names. Will it be better if I move these references to the end of the entire paragraph? --Erel Segal (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

yes that would be better. At the moment it looks like the bulk of the article us your original interpretation of the various studies, rather than a summary of the resesrchers’ own conclusions. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mccapra done. Are there any other issues to fix? --Erel Segal (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved back into mainspace and marked a# reviewed. Many thanks Mccapra (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

and so on. Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There are also several statements tagged as “clarification needed”. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mccapra Fixed both clarification requests. Erel Segal (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on N-dimensional polyhedron. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Thanks! --Erel Segal (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Power cone. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Erel Segal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Whenever I am connected to the Internet from my university's wifi network, I get a message that my IP range "212.179.0.0/16 " is blocked because it is a web-host provider, and so I cannot edit Wikipedia from within the university. Is it possible to make an exception for registered users for this IP?

Decline reason:

We can't do that, but you can go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow the instructions there to request IP block exemption by email, which would be the same thing. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Erel Segal (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I emailed them at `checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org` two weeks ago and got no reply. Is there any other option? --Erel Segal (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I am increasingly warning people I tell this to that it is not going to come quickly ... the checkusers have a lot to do, and many of those things have higher priorities. We have been getting a lot of these requests lately because we've been more aggressive in blocking open proxies where we find them.

So ...

I have looked over your history, and

• you have been editing (albeit not as heavily as some of us) for almost 16 years,
• you have never been blocked during that time, and
• you had IPBE for a year in the recent past without any issues.

I have thus decided to take it upon myself to grant you that right indefinitely (of course, any checkuser who eventually does review your request will have the right to revoke it if they feel there's a good reason, but from what I've seen of you I doubt there will be). I do not do this lightly ... admins used to be able to do it at their discretion, but then I gather someone was too free with those grants, and ... well, that's why we can't have nice things. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. 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. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Thanks a lot! --Erel Segal (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Median voting rule. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Is this a duplication or overlap with Median voter theorem or Highest median voting rules?

North8000 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, but funnily enough, it was a duplicate of median mechanism (which Erel has now kindly merged :) ) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: No - this is why I put the "do not confuse" note at the top. I explain the differences between the terms in the "Related concepts" section at the bottom. --Erel Segal (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Confusion about edit to NP-hardness

Hi, I was confused by your recent edit to the NP-hardness page. I agree with you (and was interested to learn!) that some undecidable problems are not NP-hard. But I don't see why this contradicts the informal statement "NP-hard problems are at least as hard as the hardest problems in NP". Indeed, the undecidable problems in question are not in NP.

Putting it otherwise, the informal statement says that "if Π is an NP-hard problem and Π' is a problem in NP, then Π is at least as hard as Π'". And indeed, then, Π' reduces to Π by definition. So I don't see why you find this informal statement to be inaccurate.

What do you think? Could you explain more (to me, and/or on NP-hardness) why you find the statement inaccurate? For now my opinion would be that we should mention the fact about non-NP-hard undecidable problems, but that we could keep the statement. Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@A3nm: As the informal statement appeared at the top, I understood it as an alternative definition of NP-hardness, which is an "if and only if" statement. The "if" direction that you wrote is correct, but the other direction "if Π is at least as hard as all problems in NP then Π is NP-hard" is incorrect. I edited the paragraph to clarify. --Erel Segal (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's clearer, but I'm still a bit confused. In the article you write "some problems are undecidable, and therefore even harder than all problems in NP". I'm not sure in which sense you mean this, formally: what does it mean that an undecidable problem is "harder" than a problem in NP, given that (as you point out) there is no reduction from one to the other?

I do see that you would informally expect an undecidable problem to be "harder" than an NP problem, but I don't see a way to state this as a formal claim, so I'm a bit uncomfortable with saying it explicitly.

How about rephrasing:

> Informally, if H is NP-hard, then it is "at least as hard as the hardest problems in NP". However, the opposite direction is not true: some problems are undecidable, and therefore even harder than all problems in NP, but they are provably not NP-hard (unless P=NP).

To something that avoids the issue:

> Informally, if H is NP-hard, then it is "at least as hard as the hardest problems in NP". However, there are some undecidable problems that are provably not NP-hard (unless P=NP).

What do you think? a3nm (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the word "hard" is overloaded. We should clarify the confusion between the daily use of "hard" (- difficult to solve), and the formal meaning of "hard" (- can be reduced from). I changed to "difficult to solve". Erel Segal (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Fully proportional representation. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Dominant resource fairness. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Erel Segal. Thank you for your work on Compilation complexity. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Random utility model

Hello, Erel Segal. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Random utility model".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 05:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Burr dilemma for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burr dilemma 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/Burr dilemma until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Segal, just wanted to ask if there's anything you think is important to mention at the bullet voting article about the Burr dilemma, other than the name. It's quite difficult since there's very few published sources on it, unfortunately. :( Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I am sure you are familiar with these restrictions but required. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Rental harmony

Hello Prof. Segal,

I've read the article rental harmony, and it's well written and concise!

One thing I am not sure about is in this paragraph Mash, Gal, Procaccia and Zick: EF and maximin. it is not clear whether their mechanism is individually rational (ensuring non negative utilities for all housemates). Matankic (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it is individually rational for every agent for whom the sum of valuations is at least the total rent. --Erel Segal (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I briefly read their paper and it seems 'individually rational' is not mentioned there, or is there something trivial that I miss? Matankic (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be proved from envy-freeness. --Erel Segal (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I managed to prove it. I don't get why they didn't prove this on their paper.

Proof. Let's assume, by contradiction, that there is student $s_{i}$ with negative utility over his allocated room, $0>u_{i}(A_{i})=v_{i}(A_{i})-p_{A_{i}}$, meaning that the payment for room $A_{i}$ is strictly larger than his valuation of this room, $p_{A_{i}}>v_{i}(A_{i})$. Since the solution is envy free, $\forall j:0>u_{i}(A_{i})\geq u_{i}(A_{j})$. That is, student $s_{i}$'s utility over any other room $A_{j}$ is at most $u_{i}(A_{i})<0$. Hence $\forall j:p_{A_{j}}>v_{i}(A_{j})\Rightarrow \sum _{j}p_{A_{j}}>\sum _{j}v_{i}(A_{j})$. The sum of payments for the rooms sums to $T$, the rent for the house, $\sum _{j}p_{A_{j}}=T$. Therefore, under the assumption that $\sum _{j}v_{i}(A_{j})\geq T$ we get a contradiction.

toda, Matankic (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the proof is correct. Erel Segal (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rental harmony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birkhoff decomposition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Your edit to Rental harmony has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your third warning. — Diannaa (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your incredible contributions to expanding coverage of social choice and fair division on Wikipedia. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves Thanks! Erel Segal (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Recommendations on fair division+social choice articles

There's a lot of good articles you've written on fair division and social choice. First, I wanted to say thank you for your hard work :)

I also wanted to make some suggestions—I think your articles are great, but I think there's some ways to improve their readership:

1. Right now, the articles are very hard to find from each other or from the most well-read Wiki articles on social choice. The big articles are ones like Arrow's impossibility theorem, spoiler effects, or first-past-the-post voting. I think one great way to improve this would be to try adding sidebars to some of them, which let interested users go from one to another over time.
2. The style of these articles often feels like an annotated bibliography or scholarly review article, listing a lot of papers and what they found. I think that's sensible in some situations, but in others, a textbook-like introduction might be better. Wikipedia isn't a textbook, but it's very often meant to be an introduction to a particular topic. There's generally a need for more "introductory" pages to these topics.
3. When reading your articles, I often come across specific terminology that I'm unfamiliar with. Linking can be very helpful here!

As an example of an introductory page I've written, I've reworked Arrow's impossibility theorem to serve as a discussion on some of the more important results in social choice regarding independence of irrelevant alternatives. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: thanks for the comments, and sorry for the late reply. Regarding 1, I agree that adding sidebars can be very helpful, though I am not sure where to start. If you can do it, it would be great. Regarding 2, I agree that adding introductory notes could be helpful, and I do it whenever I note the need. Regarding 3, I try to link as much as possible, but probably missed some terms. What terms do you think are under-linked? --Erel Segal (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Unusual request

Bit of an unusual request, but I came across this request for comment and have been mulling over the issue of what mechanism works for handling this sort of question. TL;DR: Wikipedia has a new admin recall procedure, where any petition that gets X signatures within Y days results in a recall election. Right now, people are arguing about what X and Y should be. Any suggestions on mechanisms for choosing? Preferences for these are probably metric-based, which makes things easier. On the other hand, I'm guessing preferences are strongly correlated in terms of whether recalls should be easy (few signatures, lots of time) or hard (high signature requirement, short timeframe). That makes me think trying to set these values one-by-one won't work very well. On the plus side, this is a fairly "clean" problem in that I'm guessing all preferences are ~single-peaked, the distribution of ideal points is roughly multivariate (log-)normal.

I know about the median mechanism for 1d problems, and since I know the geometric median has a 50% breakdown point, I'm guessing it has similar strategy-resistance properties for 2d problems (even if it's not strictly strategyproof); would that be a sensible choice, or is there a better alternative you know of? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Closed Limelike Curves: That's an interesting question. I would try some multi-dimensional extension of a median mechanism, but I am not an expert on these extensions. I will keep this question in mind and tell you if I think of something. --Erel Segal (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)