User talk:Dominus/Archive (2006)

Articles For Deletion
Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:
 * A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
 * A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
 * A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bobby-pin.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Bobby-pin.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ENIAC
Hi, I'd like to make a change to this article, for clarity. Can I ask you to check over what I'm doing on Talk:ENIAC, to stop me straying? Most grateful if you can, JackyR 18:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Paris Hilton
Hiya, there seems to be an edit war going on at the Paris Hilton article. I think it would be a good idea to thrash things out on the talk page there so that people stop reverting each other over and over again. I'm neutral on the issue of whether the article should be part of the Category: American porn stars but others editing believe that the category should stay and will revert your removal automatically. Can we talk about this?--Rhi 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have started this discussion on the Paris Hilton discussion page. Please do contribute.  --Yamla 17:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

merging what s left of professors category pages into academics pages
hello there. i couldn t ask for your vote in a nomination that i ve just made at categories for deletion to merge remaining professor cat pages into appropriate ones with links to Category:Academics. Sincere regards, Mayumashu 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:AuntJemima.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:AuntJemima.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Angr 13:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Checkers.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Checkers.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

New Video Game Article
Hey! I saw that you created a new video game related article- consider joining the Computer and Video Games WikiProject! I've added your article to the list of new articles, and attributed it to you. --PresN 20:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Schwartzian Transform
Hey, MJD, can you make your way over to the talk page for the Schwartzian Transform and help get this article back into shape? Joseph N Hall 00:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NOT
I read your User page and I think you have violated some of the wiki guidelines for the user page. Pls understand that Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site or a resource for conducting business''-.Bharatveer 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Bharatveer is referring to is the “It can be ordered online” link as overt advertisement. Other biographical references could be construed as implicit solicitation for your services-for-profit, but perhaps they are a borderline grey compared to the “It can be ordered online” link. —optikos 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that the book sale link was inappropriate; I have removed it. -- Dominus 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonnotable profs
I suspect from the message that you left on my talk page that you might disagree with my enforcement strategy of assuring that prof articles overtly demonstrate the referent person's notability. (Omitting the edit comment was an unintentional accident, which I endeavor to not repeat.) I would respond:  please add Benjamin C. Pierce to your to-do list so that the Benjamin C. Pierce article overtly demonstrates how Dr. Pierce is not yet another run-of-the-mill prof, but rather definitively meets WP:PROF as a stand-out from his peers. For example, providing independently-published laudings of the “finest on the subject” and “highly respected” as I have marked as needed in the article would go a long way toward overtly and verifiably demonstrating just how ground-breaking Dr. Pierce's work in programming-language types has been. The current Benjamin C. Pierce article reads like boasting/advertising rather than an encyclopedia article about a notable person. Dr. Pierce perhaps deserves a more-verifiable article if he truly is notable. —optikos 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on your strategy or on Dr. Pierce's notability; if I had, I would have said something in my note. I agree with your opinion that the article needs better sources.  -- Dominus 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky hierarchy
On a more extend-olive-branch note, I have been none too pleased lately about the movement of Chomsky hierarchy to Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy. I notice that you enjoy working on mathematical and theoretical CS articles. Do you agree that the sole widely-recognized name of the 1956 Chomsky hierarchy is just that and not Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy? Do you agree that Chomsky–Schützenberger is the name of a 1963 theory as mentioned in the Marcel Schützenberger article and that that theorem does not subsume all of the Chomsky hierarchy and thus the name “Chomsky–Schützenberger theory” does not extrapolate to the renaming “Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy”? If not, why not? —optikos 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My answer to your first question is "yes". My answer to the rest of the questions is "I don't know".  -- Dominus 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I myself am still investigating the latter questions before I start taking action (either discussion or insert ).  Surveying other languages' Wikipedias, only the German-language analogue offers Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy (i.e., Chomsky–Schützenberger-Hierarchie) as an alternate name in the Chomsky-Hierarchie titled article.  No others co-attributed the hierarchy to Schützenberger. —optikos 13:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue now seems quite clear to me: google search for "Chomsky Schutzenberger hierarchy" produces 15 hits, some of which are Wikipedia; search for "Chomsky hierarchy" produces 68,000 hits. It is completely obvious that "Chomsky-Schutzenberger hierarchy" is a neologism that has little currency, and that the article should be named "Chomsky hierarchy".
 * A (perhaps similar) matter came up in connection with Zorn's lemma. Zorn did not invent Zorn's lemma; he invented a different principle, which was in fact anticipated by many others, including Kuratowski.  The lemma is sometimes called the Zorn-Kuratowski lemma.  But the article should nevertheless be listed as Zorn's lemma, because, however unjust that may be, that's what people call it.

Classical Ramsey number notation
Hi, Dominus! The notation of classical Ramsey numbers is a very minor matter (since any well-defined explicit notation should be OK within a given article). However, if some notation should be preferred, it should be the prevalent one. You recently happened to revert an edit by an anonymous user, who actually changed the notation to a much more employed convention; and if the user was a new-comer, this could be very discouraging.

The 'classical' notation for an r-colour Ramsey number (on a complete graph of ordinary kind), forcing the existence of a $$n_i\,$$ clique of colour i for some i, is $$R(n_1,...,n_r)\,$$. (The number of colours is not given, since it follows from the arity. If all $$n_i$$ are equal, on the other hand, it is normal to use an alternative notation with r explicitly given.)  As for modern usage, if you look e.g. at Landman-Robertson, p. 8 (or at their notation summary at p. 294), you'll find that they use the same (classical) notation. Also, if you look at the first one of the Dynamic Surveys of the Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, by Radziszowski, (which I think should be added as external link to Ramsey theory), you'll find the same usage at the notation summary on p. 3. Worse, as you can see, Radziszowski uses the notation $$R(n_1,...,n_r;s)$$ for something rather different; he considers complete s-hypergraphs instead of ordinary complete graphs (but still with r colours, not s ones). The concepts coincide iff $$s=2$$, when indeed he drops the ";2" part.

I preferred to make the points here; as I wrote, if the editor was a new-comer, (s)he should not be disencouraged from making valid changes by too complex discussion, either. However, if you don't object, I'm going to revert your reversion to-morrow - or, better, if you agree with me you could do it yourself!

Best wishes, JoergenB 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Higher-Order Perl
Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I just recently read your book Higher-Order Perl and I wanted to tell you it is excellent—one of the most useful books on Perl I've read in a while. I look forward to using some of the techniques in the book at my day job. I don't really have anything Wikipedia-related to say to you; just sending my regards. Thanks! Nohat 04:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  I'm really glad you liked it.  -- Dominus 07:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Invite
--evrik 18:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Philly meetup
Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask CComMack's. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 18:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Deadly Initials
Hi. Thanks for your message from 6 Dec, and your edits to the article. In fact, I removed the patent nonsense notice which had been added by another editor. As you say, it clearly doesn't qualify as patent nonsense. All the best SP-KP 14:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society
I have summarized my arguments for including an article on the Mega Society in Wikipedia here:

Talk:Mega_Society

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon (talk • contribs) 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)