User talk:Tobias Bergemann

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


Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 22:33, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project[edit]

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

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:


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:

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)

Bundesland-level categories[edit]

Hello! I see you are listed in Category:Wikipedians in Germany. I have made subcategories for each Bundesland in case you would like to add yourself to the appropriate one. See Category:Wikipedians in Germany for a list of the subcategories (they use the English names, the same as their Wikipedia articles). --Angr (tɔk) 15:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

forth and scheme[edit]

I see you are interested in both Forth and Scheme. These are my two favorite languages, and I feel they have much in common, both having minimalist philosophies and being highly extensible. What do you think? How did you get interested in them? (you can reply here, I'll watchlist you) Ideogram 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an engineer (well, I am a physicist really, but I work as a software developer), I generally find an economical use of resources and concepts attractive. I would not call Forth or Scheme my favorite languages, however. I like them because they encourage a bottom-up/incremental approach to software development (which in my experience leads to really nice solutions) and because they encourage the development of domain-specific languages. However, the one resource that I now value most highly is developer time, i.e. the time that I myself have to invest to solve a given problem. The one drawback of minimalist languages (I would include Lua into this category) I see is that while I can extend them in all possible directions I often have to do a lot of things myself that I do not have to with other languages.
Both Forth and Scheme suffer from highly fragmented user communities ("If you have seen one Forth, well, then you have seen one Forth."), both with dozens of mostly but not quite standard-conforming implementations an few portable libraries. I think this a result of their respective minimalist philosophies.
I learned Forth to see how close one could get "to the metal" while retaining the possibility to use high-level concepts, and I learned Scheme to understand continuations, and because it is used in the book Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. I learned them years before I considered working as a software developer. During that time I also toyed around with Prolog and Common Lisp. At work, we use a mixture of C++ and Python.
I have not had the chance to use Forth or Scheme in a commercial setting yet, and I wonder how well they scale to teams with more then a dozen developers.
That said, I still like to use Scheme if I do not know what I am doing, i.e. if I am trying out things, toying with ideas etc. — Tobias Bergemann 11:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you make valid points regarding the disadvantages of minimalist philosophies. I was always turned off by the philosophy of Perl but when I actually used it I was amazed at how quickly I could produce something. It just goes to show no language is perfect.
I actually feel continuation-passing is a better foundation for programming than function calls. Carl Hewitt in his Actor paradigm showed that continuation-passing can represent all control structures, and it generalizes to parallel distributed systems better than synchronous function calls. The requirement to optimize tail-recursion is an ugly hack in the Scheme specification that would not be necessary in a continuation-passing style.
BTW I am working heavily on programming language and I would love to have your input there if you are interested. I even copied your references on typing for use there. Ideogram 11:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
On a syntactic level, explicit continuation-passing can get annoying if you have to write down all intermediate continuations. This may be strictly a language issue, and may well vanish with a syntax that is better adjusted to continuation-passing (for example, the Io language used in Raphael Finkel's book Advanced Programming Language Design; this is not the same language as Io). However, there are certainly situations where continuation-passing can actually improve the clarity of a program, e.g. when you are passing around explicit error continuations or are simulating Prolog-style constraint programming. (These uses can often be simulated with exception handling as they only use single-shot upward-only continuations.)
On a semantic level, I find it difficult to reason about the performance of a program written with explicit continuation-passing. It all depends on the concrete representation of the continuations, I guess. Modern Scheme and ML compilers work hard to remove unnecessary continuations, e.g. using Amr Sabry's Administrative Normal Form internally.
I probably would prefer to work with a rich language that supported exception handling, co-routines, cooperative multithreading, futures etc. out of the box than work with "naked" continuation-passing.
My knowledge about parallel distributed systems is too limited to form an opinion about the advantages and disadvantes of continuation-passing. Do you mean distributed as in geographically distributed networked systems? Does your definition of parallel include mutable shared state?
Shared memory parallelism is one model but it does not map well to distributed systems, which, indeed, may be geographically distributed and therefore have high latency. The actor paradigm is based on message-passing and has no globally shared state. Continuations can naturally be viewed as a form of message-passing.
The high latency and possible communication failures in geographically distributed systems favor asynchronous message-passing over synchronous function calls which may block for arbitrarily long periods of time. This solution has been discovered over and over every time large geographically distributed systems have been built.
Note that with increasing clock rates and shrinking feature size the same issues with geographically distributed systems appear for signals that have to travel across a large CPU chip. Current practice is moving to multicore chips for this reason; they generally have a shared memory architecture but this will become increasingly difficult as cores and caches multiply and cache coherence becomes an issue. See the Cell chip architecture for instance which does away with cache entirely.
As for the ongoing work on the page programming language, I am not sure I can be of much help. This is a really big topic, given the rich history and the sheer number of programming languages. — Tobias Bergemann 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No one "knows it all" regarding the subject. What makes Wikipedia great is we can each contribute part of the knowledge. We only need a general overview in any case; it is intended to be an introduction to a reader who doesn't even know what a programming language is. You have already contributed by giving me two references on types that I was able to use; our greatest need right now is for more references on already written material. Come on, it'll be fun! Ideogram 13:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your heavy work on forth. It is greatly appreciated. Ideogram 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The "programming language" article suffix[edit]

I read your comments on the language naming conventions talk page about the questionable "programming language" article suffix, and i thought you might be interested to know that several editors (including me) are trying to get the policy fixed. --Piet Delport 15:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I was a bit puzzled by the definition cofinal set of subsets on the Cofinal (mathematics) page. I've put a question on the discussion page and wondered if you could have a look at it? Francis Davey 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Just a word of greetings :-) --HappyCamper 09:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"feel free to revert if you prefer the previous version"[edit]

I thought your changes to Prime number theorem make the article look much neater, actually. It's much better than two header rows. CRGreathouse (talk | contribs) 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That is reassuring to hear. It's just that in light of the current debates on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and Wikipedia talk:Citation templates I try to be really careful with this kind of edits. — Tobias Bergemann 07:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


You did the following: "Removed rant ("This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."))" Ok. So, what is the proper venue for discussion? Respond back at my talk page, thanks. C++ Template 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


It was a pleasure to spot a genuine WikiGnome in action. Thank you for your help! Geometry guy 19:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A moron.[edit]

Sorry about that, I won't be calling people "morons" anymore and won't bite them either. Just that I am always getting very touchy about that subject, because it seems to me as an inconceivable inequity towards Albinoni, on a hand, and act of foolishness from those who still believe that's one of the finest Baroque pieces, or those who've heard it's a lie but still are stubborn. All in all, it was just some sick publicity for a piece that would have never gained attention otherwise, had it been not attributed to Albinoni and claimed as a disappeared piece recovered! All these, on behalf of money. Impy4ever 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. (I can relate to what you write. Still, the world is harsh enough without people calling each other names.) — Tobias Bergemann 12:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


While I can understand the concept of not telling people how stupid they are in an overt and offensive manner, I find myself unable to restrain myself when a fool refuses to think before taking action. 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Flag of Germany.svg

Hello, Tobias Bergemann! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Flag of Germany.svg

Hello, Tobias Bergemann! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I've seen your important contributions for the article Exact trigonometric constants. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}, when n is natural (and is not given in advance). Do you know of any such general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression? (note that any exponential-expression-over-the-imaginaries is also excluded since it's trivially equivalent to a real-trigonometric expression).

  • Let me explain: if we choose n=1 then the term \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} becomes "0", which is a simple (non-trigonometric) constant. If we choose n=2 then the term \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} becomes \begin{align}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{align}, which is again a non-trigonometric expression. etc. etc. Generally, for every natural n, the term \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} becomes a non-trigonometric expression. However, when n is not given in advance, then the very expression \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} per se - is a trigonometric expression. I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression equivalent to \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align}, when n is not given in advance. If not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent.

Eliko (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking for. Using the usual addition theorem I get the following:
\cos \alpha = cos \left( 2 \cdot \frac{\alpha}{2} \right) = 2 \left(\cos \frac{\alpha}{2}\right)^2 - 1
And then:
\cos \frac{\alpha}{2} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \cos \alpha \right)}
(In the region where \cos(\alpha/2) is non-negative). From this we find
\cos \frac{\pi}{2^{n+1}} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{2} \left( 1 + \cos \frac{\pi}{2^n} \right)}
So I take it you want a closed formula for this square-root? — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What you give here is an iterative formula, using the trigonometric term "cos". I'm looking for the general (non-iterative) formula, using no trigonometric terms. Eliko (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I don't now of such a general formula. Let's see:

  \cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}      & = & \sqrt\frac{p_n}{q_n} \\
  \cos \frac{\pi}{2^{n+1}}  & = & \sqrt \frac{1 + \sqrt{p_n/q_n}} 2 \\
                            & = & \sqrt \frac{\sqrt{q_n} + \sqrt{p_n}}{2 \sqrt{q_n}} \\
                            & = & \sqrt\frac{p_{n+1}}{q_{n+1}}
So we get q_{n+1} = 2 \sqrt{q_n} and p_{n+1} = \sqrt{q_n} + \sqrt{p_n}. We also have q_1 = 1 and p_1 = 0. So we get
q_1, q_2, q_3, q_4, q_5, \dots = 1, 2, 2 \sqrt2, 2 \sqrt{2 \sqrt 2}, 2 \sqrt{2 \sqrt{2 \sqrt 2}}\dots
p_1, p_2, p_3, p_4, p_5\dots = 0, 1, \sqrt 2 + 1, \sqrt{2 \sqrt 2} + \sqrt{\sqrt 2 + 1}, \sqrt{2 \sqrt{2 \sqrt 2} + \sqrt{\sqrt{2 \sqrt 2} + \sqrt{\sqrt 2 + 1}}}, \dots
I don't see how this can be rewritten in a more closed, non-iterative form. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(De-indent.) I see that you have asked the same question on several other user talk pages. It may have been preferable if you had asked your question at the mathematics reference desk. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
By the way: Are you sure \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} must be of the form \begin{align}\sqrt\frac{p_n}{q_n} \end{align}?
Eliko (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Trivially yes, as I did not specify p_n and q_n any further in my ansatz. (Every non-negative real number can be written in a myriad ways as the square root of the quotient of two other non-negative real numbers.) — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've meant: are you sure there are two non-trigonometric functions, P and Q, over the natural numbers, such that \begin{align}\cos \frac{\pi}{2^n}\end{align} is of the form \begin{align}\sqrt\frac{P(n)}{Q(n)} \end{align}? Eliko (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits to Zero sharp[edit]

I love it. Thank you. I loathed the way the lede paragraph read previously but never took the time to fix it. Zero sharp (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lattice (order)[edit]

Still needs work, I'm afraid. Simply stating its a convention doesn't help much. What are the advantages of this convention? There must be some. Note: Since my earlier intervention, I've crept closer to convincing myself that the empty set is indeed the only one for which the join is below the meet, so it sort of closes the lattice by linking its top and bottom. But I'm still uncomfortable with the reasons why---or more exactly with the lack of a convincing explanation in the article. Please help dissipate this cognitive fog. Urhixidur (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Any partially ordered set with joins and meets for all finite non-empty subsets is a lattice, but it need not be bounded. I will try to clarify that in the article. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Now I see how the odd-seeming join and meet of the empty set are a consequence of the commutativity and associativity of the operators.

Switching the focus, am I right in claiming that the "lattice of partitions of a four-element set" given in the figure is actually not a lattice? I say this because a lattice must have joins and meets for any two pairs of elements, and this diagram clearly does not. For instance, 1/2/3/4 and 1/23/4 have as least upper bounds 14/23, 1/234, and 123/4, but there is no ordering between those three. Either I'm missing something or the article needs yet more work.  :-) Urhixidur (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I was missing: the reflexivity. 1/2/3/4 has itself and every other member of the set as upper bounds. 1/23/4 has itself and 14/23, 1/234, 123/4, and 1234 as upper bounds. 1/23/4 is least of the bunch. So in general the join of any two members is either one of the members if they have an ordering relation, otherwise the choice devolves between the members of the set of descendants they have in common. One can still build partially ordered sets that are not lattices, but the one shown is indeed a lattice. Urhixidur (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. your recent edit of Lisp[edit]

The reference to “The evolution of Lisp” appears in the Language innovations section of the Lisp article. What language innovations are highlighted by Steele et al. that aren’t already mentioned in the section as it presently stands? What would the general reader of the Wikipedia article gain by reading The evolution of Lisp? Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because your edit summary suggested to me that you wanted the reference to the paper removed because you saw the paper as self-published and therefore unfit as a reference. When I reverted, I did not consider the place where the paper was mentioned in the wikipedia article. IMHO, Steele and Gabriel's "The Evolution of Lisp" is the canonical reference on the history of Lisp and the features of the various language dialects, and on re-reading the wikipedia article I am now surprised that it is referenced in the "Language innovations" section instead of the "History" section. I would very much like to keep a reference to the paper in the wikipedia article, but I agree that mentioning it in the "Language innovations" section does feel a bit out of place. (Still, section 3 of the paper is on "Evolution of Some Specific Language Feautures", and section 4 is titled "Lisp as a Language Laboratory". With 36 pages these two section make up about a third of the paper, so mentioning it in the "Language innovations" section it probably not completely misplaced.) — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope you can agree with my slight reordering of the article. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I like it. Thanks for your work. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, which you initiated. Occuli (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you help with archiving talk pages again?[edit]

This time on lambda calculus where there's even more intermingling of old and new issues. Thanks, Pcap ping 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have archived some older discussions to Talk:Lambda calculus/Archive 1. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! Pcap ping 11:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Noncommutative ring/non-commutative ring[edit]

FYI - requested histories to be merged from Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, all articles involved are tagged. Henry Delforn (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your help on Scheme (programming language). I've started a new article on the history of the Scheme programming language which I hope you might find interesting at least as an idea. You will probably recognise most of the text from various related articles. I'm just trying to pull together some of our existing information scattered through various articles related to AI projects at MIT.

Maybe there should be a huge, vast, undigestible attempt to summarize all the wonderful things that happened during those years. But for now, I'm concentrating on Scheme, which is still around and still has the power to entrance. --TS 19:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - anchors[edit]

Thanks for pointing out about using anchors on the exponentiation page. I must keep them in mind in future. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting my mess[edit]

I tried undoing the 3 vandal edits but apparently in the wrong order so ended up having to manually remove what I thought was only Lordchembx's "work". I didn't realize he/she had overwritten a previously established section. Ooops. Thanks for fixing. I'm far from irresponsible, just a klutz ;) Fred Gandt (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

On Lisp[edit]

For a scholarly review, see: Artificial Intelligence Review Volume 13, Number 3, 239-241, DOI: 10.1023/A:1006564729042

For evidence of the influence, search google scholar for: graham "on lisp" and click on the "cited by" link. (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cardinality of the continuum[edit]

Hi Tobias. Your edit is useful. You inserted a missing bit of information. However, I believe that an introduction about the "proof" of |R| > |N| should be in the section called "intuitive argument".

This is what we are discussing right now in Talk:Cardinality of the continuum.

I think that the intro should be as brief as possible. I recently wrote the new intro after discussing the text in the talk page. We agreed that the structure of the sentence you edited should be:

  1. Simple statement |R| > |N|
  2. More formal statement |R| = 2|N| > |N|
  3. Reference to Cantor and link to Cantor's first uncountability proof

Teh link to Cantor's proof is enough for me in the lead. Your text in my opinion should be inserted somehow in a rewritten version of the section "intuitive argument". Of course, this is only my opinion. If you disagree, I'll not undo your edit. Please answer here. I am watching your talk page. Paolo.dL (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The statement |R| > |N| is essentially meaningless to the reader if we don't explain what it means for two sets with both infinitely many elements to be of different “size”. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that was short to the point of being rude, I apologize. Let me try to elaborate. First, let me appeal to authority by quoting Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” My point is that statements about cardinal numbers are, by definition, not simple.
The statement |R| > |N| is not simple, and it is no less formal than the statement |R| = 2|N| > |N|. The statement |R| > |N| is a statement about certain cardinal numbers and how they compare. To compare cardinal numbers, by definition, means asking about the existence or nonexistence of certain bijections, and I do feel that we should explain this to the reader. To mention that there can be no bijection between the natural numbers and the real numbers is just a rephrasing of the statement |R| > |N|.
The leading section of an article should not be too long. However, it should be a summary of the article body, and it should be written so that the reader can from the leading section alone get enough information to reach a basic, if crude, understanding of the subject of the article. To reach this goal, the leading section should, in my opinion, be reasonably self-contained so that the reader is not forced to chase links to understand the terms used in the leading section if they can be defined in a few words.
However, I really meant it when I wrote “Feel free to revert if you prefer the previous version” in my edit summary.
Tobias Bergemann (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Note that the article, and particularly the table to what did you interfere, discusses a character encoding scheme, not the (current state of) Unicode standard. The unregistered user correctly stated that possible 4-byte UTF-8 sequences ends at 221−1 = 0x1FFFFF not 0x10FFFF, you did not throw away rows about 4- and 5 byte with 226−1 and 231−1 correspondingly which at your point may not exist, indeed! But you mistakenly reverted him. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was right. I was confused by presence of two tables. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Major modifications to Orthogonal Convex Hull article[edit]

Dear Tobias,

By reviewing the revision history of the Orthogonal convex hull article, I noticed that you made some modifications. Right now I am restructuring and expanding the content of this article, and I would like to know if you are willing to help in its improvement. I have added some templates to the original article, and have an under construction version in my sandbox. This is my first time editing an article, so any comment would be greatly appreciated.--Carlos Alegría (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Tobias. I noticed this edit of yours. I think you may be mistaken in your interpretation of wp:EPON.

This chat summarises my own understanding of categories. Would you care to discuss?

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. While I insist that Go (game) should stay in Category:Traditional board games I agree that its inclusion into Category:Board games is not needed, and I am going to take it out of this category. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

C (programming language)[edit]

Thanks. Sorry for messing that up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for taking care of that vandal. It's an ed institution IP that has been blocked from anonymous editing earlier this year, and I've posted it to WP:AIV. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

game theory[edit]

blanking was unintentional.was trying to add a new section. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


TOBIAS TOBIAS.....tera ki kariye..hai... translates.. what to do with you....soldier of fortune...:)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Look. You have been repeatedly asked to provide citations for your changes to Game theory, Simon Kuznets, and Norwegian School of Economics. And stop being silly at Theory of relativity. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


Regarding [1], I would expect one should probably write this as two words if used as a noun (as in Run time (program lifecycle phase)), but with a hyphen when used as an adjective (as in Run-time system). Cheers, —Ruud 09:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Move Review[edit]

Regarding your entry over at Move Review, I have placed a comment. My suggestion would be that you create a new move request with the proposed title. Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Programming language[edit]

Hi Tobias,

What's your opinion on this addition?

Cheers, —Ruud 14:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Real line[edit]

" However, I believe metric is the more common term. " However, I believe metric is the more common term. " Just a note: I used "distance function" instead of "metric" because it could be confused with "metric tensor". Anyway, thanks for adding the link,  : ) ..

Wirth syntax notation[edit]

Hello, Tobias Bergemann …

It's been almost a year since you did some cosmetic edits to Wirth syntax notation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a page that I originally created another incarnation ago … that's the kind of editing I usually comment as "putting lipstick on a pig." :-)

Anywho, I was just crawling my bookmarks page when I noticed that this article hadn't been touched for nearly a year, so I thought I'd just give you a ping to say that I'm glad to see that it has been "stable" for such a long time.

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 03:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Splatterpunk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Shea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki markup[edit]

I have removed the link to Help:Cheatsheet at Wiki markup, per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Help:Cheatsheet, as far as I can tell, has not been mentioned by any reliable, third party sources. Thanks, -- Ross HillTalkNeed Help? • 23:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)



Please see Talk:Dedekind-infinite set.

Best regards, YohanN7 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Tychonoff corkscrew listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tychonoff corkscrew. Since you had some involvement with the Tychonoff corkscrew redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Keφr 07:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


I just quoted one of your diffs at Talk:Keming#Kerning, the discussion may be of interest. (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


Dear Tobias Bergemann,

I recently cut-and-pasted all of console server into terminal server.

You recently commented, "Apparently, Console server wasn't really merged as such but its contents pasted here."([2]), apparently in response to my cut-and-paste.

Another big cut-and-paste I did recently was reverted with the comment "It was not a merge, it was a copy/paste."([3])

I'm starting to suspect that maybe the instructions at Wikipedia:Merge#How to merge (Step one: "Copy ... and paste ... do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit rather than when you first paste the moved text.") are obsolete. Maybe someone has discovered a better way.

Is there a better way to "really merge" two articles, other than manual cut-and-paste? --DavidCary (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no better way than manual cut-and-paste, but in the cases you mention, it's the "do any necessary copyediting and rearranging in a separate, second edit" that hadn't happened, like making the merge target comply with WP:LAYOUT again and so on. And, of course, this is always the tedious part, resulting in cases where there is clear consensus for a merge but with nobody actually performing the menial task. Perhaps the instructions should make clearer that this is an import, in many ways the central, part of the merge process.
I would probably not revert a "paste edit". On the other hand, I would not perform such paste edits and then wait hours with the copyediting and integrating part of the merge, leaving the merge target in a bit of a mess. Tobias Bergemann (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)[edit]

Hi Tobias,

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Definition list listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Definition list. Since you had some involvement with the Definition list redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)