User talk:Michael Slone
|
How?
How did you manage to wikify thousands of users in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits? Did you use an automatic program of some kind? Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thank you
hey man, thank you for reversing the vandalism on my user page. I am very grateful. :-* *Daijinryuu*
Same for me, thanks a lot, I was away from the computer and I didn't notice it. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
RewURding
Much thanks for rewording the line on Ur in Characters of 8-Bit Theater. That little comma game was getting aggravating, but I couldn't figure out a good way to express it differently yesterday. --R. Wolff 10:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Your edit to Same-sex marriage in South Africa
Your recent edit to Same-sex marriage in South Africa (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- My edit was not vandalism. Michael Slone (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not how you do it
If you really want those images gone, just delete them altogether. jprime 16:05, 23 November 2006
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
veganism
Noo, No. I should have phrased my reasoning better. The Pronunciation looked somthing like V?e?an (or "Vegan" with a lot of question marks in between.) So I fixed it so that it would be more legible; if you think that this would be better resolved a different way, feel free :]
Vegan userbox
Oh, sure! Feel free just to move it to anything like User:Kilo-Lima/Vegan or something along those line. Sorry for the belated reply. Thanks, Kilo•T 17:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[1] [2] * "Mistaken Memories of Mediaeval Manhattan" =→ On Land.
help :( --Doktor Who 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
PlanetMath
I don't think the PlanetMath forums are broken, at least not in any technical sense. I think if the other members exhibited more of the spirit of cooperation that you have abundantly shown (and which I hope hasn't been too much of a sidetrack from your research) the forums would contain more math sprinkled with a few interesting (but civilly stated) sidetracks. I again thank you for your help over there and the understanding way in which you offer it. PrimeFan 23:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's good news about your research, I'm glad to hear it. Let me know the journal when you publish it in a couple years.
- As for PlanetMath, I guess it's made me appreciate Wikipedia more. The deal with the motivic cohomology entry would've been solved already. Take Anton's entry on Znám's problem: he wrote it both here and at PlanetMath. Here, without having ownership, David Eppstein took charge and made major improvements. There, it has for the most part stagnated. PrimeFan 22:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ada Deitz
Probably you know that the article on her is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ada Dietz. As you made a request for her entry on PlanetMath, you may want to comment. . DGG 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Responded
Thank you. I wrote a response:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cornince#Response
Cornince (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I responded again. Thank you. Cornince 07:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded yet again. Thank you. ^_^ Cornince (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I think I answered your question more cleanly. Please check immediately below your last post in my talk page. Cornince (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Responded, thanks. ^_^ Cornince (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Category:Graph theory
I don't see the circular subcategorization you mentioned in your edit summary here: [3]
Could you explain? The other categories don't go up to Category:Graphs. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I see what you are saying. But Wikipedia goes by the most common meaning first. Various specialists in graphs may have different categorization schemes depending on whether they are approaching it from a high-level math theory approach, or a statistics approach, etc..
- The WP:CAT guidelines say that people should be able to find what can reasonably be expected to be found in categories by following common meanings.
- There may be circular subcategorization, but for the average reader it would be in the opposite direction from the one you pointed out. Specialist meanings such as Category:Graph theory would be subcategories of Category:Graphs to the average reader.
- Guidelines are just that... guidelines. So it is OK to allow some circularity at times if it helps people find stuff. We can also use "See also" links. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
p-group edit
I replied. I don't see a simple solution, but one could copyedit the pq statement to make it less confusing; the rest should probably be deleted as duplicating two earlier sentences. JackSchmidt (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Brauer–Nesbitt theorem BALETED
Not from wikipedia, just from List of mathematical articles. See the diff and the confession. The latter might also mention some other articles of interest. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome possum. I think the p-group article got fixed too. I think I might find that project where you go around and make sure each wikipedia article has at least *one* reliable source. It felt really silly when somebody objected to the definition of a cyclic group and there was no source to point them at. You'd think it'd be easy, but most books I had at hand barely gave it an independent clause, much less a sentence or paragraph or section, but Gallian (not at hand) had a whole chapter on it. JackSchmidt (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It should establish notability and provide context. It is a notable concept, but probably should be included in a larger article, and this one made a redirect. If a relation is not cyclically reduced, then it can be shortened. In almost all cases this is a wise idea. In Todd-Coxeter enumeration one often includes all cyclic permutations of a word for improved performance.
There are too many dictionary definitions, and not enough articles. I could turn this one into a decent article, so I don't think it deserves deletion, but it'd be much easier to turn it into a good section of a broader article. JackSchmidt (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm retarded. I did not notice your edit summary. Yes, the redirect sounds like a great idea. I'll add the context or whatever to reduced word (if its not already there) after the redirect. JackSchmidt (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
SmacksBot done knocked you out
Bam! I think the only solution is to find a second reference. :) JackSchmidt (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome
Glad I could help. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
From Puranjan
Thanks for correcting my vandalisim Including my name.--Puranjan Dev (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)