User talk:LC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi LC, I left a question for you at Talk:NP-Hard. AxelBoldt 22:01 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

Another issue came up at Talk:EXPTIME. AxelBoldt 18:59 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

please see[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Inactive1

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Formula for primes[edit]

(I left the following comment on another editor's page, not realizing you added the formula originally) Please see the Talk page, where another editor has removed your formula for primes. I tested it, and it seemed to work, but we both agree that a source would be good for the information. My quick check of the web didn't provide any results, and I was hoping you had a source to use. Actually it doesn't seem too hard to prove, but I think wikipedia's policy on original research would disqualify that. So, how 'bout it? Care to dig up the 'ol number theory books? — vijay (Talk) 01:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's now a proof on Talk:Formula for primes. —Lowellian (reply) 04:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles[edit]

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your user talk page[edit]

Hi LC, I found your user talk page while checking out some old edits. I have history merged it, so all edits are now in one place. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 12:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity[edit]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Like Newyorkbrad, I am thrilled that one of our earliest contributors may have returned - but as indicated above, bureaucrats must be reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised prior to undertaking a resysop request. Is there anyone still active who might be able to confirm your identity? Also - could log in from your home internet connection to certify your request? –xenotalk 02:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)