I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Automata vs. automaton
I disagree with your alteration of the page Von Neumann universal constructor. Automaton is the particular pattern of cell states, which defines a particular machine of some function; this may be a self-replicator, a general constructor, a Turing machine, or some other, lesser capable machine. Automata is the general term, which for the cellular case refers to the total set of finite state automatons which are organised in a lattice network; the *chessboard* if you will. So, it is with cellular automata that I work, in the design and characterisation of cellular automatons, such as my partial constructor. William R. Buckley (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- An automaton is a machine, and automata is the general class. When one speaks of many automatons, then we have automata. For instance, a finite state automaton (see the article) is a singular device, and a collection of many of these are known as (a set of) finite state automata. Further, when referring to the collection of such automatons, and when they are organised into a rectilinear grid (lattice), we call them cellular automata. However, the specific pattern of a machine, as expressed within a system of cellular automata, is called an automaton. That many automata are used in the construction of a single automaton is quite irrelevant regarding the proper naming of such.
- One clear source of reference to the naming given in my edits to Wikipedia articles are my papers. You might also consider the works of Daniel Mange, or the many others who have written on the subject of von Neumann cellular automata.
- Consider, also, the definition provided here: http://www.yourdictionary.com/automaton William R. Buckley (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Fairly simple, automaton is the Greek singular and automata the plural. In computing, finite state automata are common, but so is a finite state automaton. Automatons is just plain wrong (though perhaps in US English not, I do UK English and I am a bit picky with this kind of stuff?) SimonTrew (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Charles Savage (DAB)
I see you edited this on 12 April 2009 (which happens to be my birthday. 12 April 2008 was too. Odd, that).
You might want to take a look at it. I've added another entry which comes ultimately from Medellín but I am not too happy about it really, cos it gives undue prominence to a guy who hasn't even an entry in WP. But I am not sure how to fix it, you may have a clue. SimonTrew (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
RE: The Fellowship (Christian organization) and the AIDS Connection
Actually, I think your restored phrasing is pretty good. It merely implies a causal connection without outright attributing the rise in AIDS to the organization, which is consistent with the citation in Sharlet's book. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's actually Sharlet's phrasing. It's the relevant sentence verbatim from pg. 328 of The Family. Davemck (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was
true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to
false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Robert Mecklenborg appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)