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: ~~~~.
- 1 Automata vs. automaton
- 2 Charles Savage (DAB)
- 3 RE: The Fellowship (Christian organization) and the AIDS Connection
- 4 Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
- 5 July 2011
- 6 "gm"?
- 7 Knuth repeated
- 8 Invitation
- 9 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 10 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 11 Paraprosdokian examples
- 12 Thanks
- 13 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
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)
- Hi LoS. It's for grammar, as listed here: Wikipedia:Edit_summary_legend/Quick_reference. However, as it can obviously confuse even an administrator, I'll make it a point to summarize with "grammar" instead of just "gm" from now on. Thanks. Davemck (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing humorous about the repeated name in the caption on Knuth's page. Also jokes aren't what Wikipedia is about. Perhaps you could explain the joke and say why it should be kept thanks. It would be good to put that in a a FAQ on the talk page so it could be referred to if there is some good reason. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The humor is completely subjective; I find it mildly amusing, especially since it's in the section on Knuth's own legendary sense of humor. The 2nd Knuth is on Appelbaum's shirt. Of course, you could say that's not a real Knuth, only a picture of Knuth -- but that's true of the other Knuth as well. I personally don't care whether he's listed twice in the caption; my purpose was to point out that the caption has alternated between 1 & 2 mentions for a long time, as you can see from the history (most easily by looking for changes of 16 or 17 bytes). I won't attempt to change anything back, so be my guest. Davemck (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
|You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology|
Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems that this new Wikiproject would be interesting to you. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers
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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
First off, wanted to say thanks for your continued work on Paraprosdokian.
I'm the user who edited the examples section to include The Loophole by Garfunkel and Oates. My edit was reverted because the source didn't specify the lyrics quoted paraprosdokian, per the hidden comment.
My question, then, is why the need for this requirement? The article does a very nice job of defining what paraprosdokian is; why have the blanket rule of requiring examples specified as such, rather than assessing each entry on its own merit? If my entry had been deleted because its status as paraprosdokian were contested, then I suppose I'd be a bit more understanding; from the edit notes, this seems not to be the case.
Thanks again for the work on the page!
- Hi .149. The hidden comment is based on a consensus discussed here. It's derived from the WP principles "No original research" and "Verifiability, not truth". Essentially, we want reliable sources to decide what's a paraprosdokian, not us editors. Davemck (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I see you started to do the huge reparation of Dr.saze's (and other editors') damages. I want to thank you for all of us and I have also some good news. You can have a rest from your hard work because Dr.saze offer himself he will delete all AFI nominations. But if you can delete it yourself we have not any problem because your work is well-done. Happy further editing. - TobRob (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, TobRob. After starting, I see that other editors besides Dr.saze have added nominations. I'll work on those, over time. Davemck (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)