User talk:Ruud Koot/2005

Rudy, welkom op de Wikipedia. You seem to be doing fine, so I won't give you the usual welcome message with links to a pile of articles to read (see Template:Welcome if curious). I was just wondering what you're planning to do with Template:Mathematics-footer. If you plan to add it to a couple of articles, I suggest you discuss this first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics where some mathematicians hang out; you might run into some opposition otherwise. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page at User talk:Jitse Niesen. Anyway, I hope you will contribute some more to the maths articles, and I'm happy to see that there are still people in the Netherlands studying mathematics (I studied in Twente myself). All the best, Jitse Niesen 09:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Editing user's pages
Hi Rudy. I sort of thought that editing a new user's page to make it conform to the manual of style should be fine, as that's a good way of showing the user how the pages should look like (especially with the issue of capitalization, which a huge number of people get wrong). But I see your point, a user's page is a user's page, and ultimately the user decides what to be there. So, I will not do that again.

Welcome from me too. Thank you for your categorizing work. Oleg Alexandrov 20:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And a request
Rudy, you are doing great work! :) And I have a request. Would you mind adding the new categories you create to the list of mathematics categories? I run a bot every now and then, which updates the list of mathematical topics by looking up the contents of the categories listed in the list of mathematics categories. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov 21:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Move of "Mathematical beauty" to "Aesthetics in mathematics"
Hi R.Koot. Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you moved Mathematical beauty to Aesthetics in mathematics. Was there any discussion which preceded this? I can't find any. I don't think I like the name change, especially as the article uses the term "beauty" throughout. Paul August &#9742; 19:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not discussed it, but I personally prefer the word aesthetics. It also allows categorization under philosophy of mathematics (aesthetics being a branch of philosphy). I do agree that it mismatches with the article, but I'd think it would be better to change the article than the title.

--R.Koot 20:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rudy thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I don't agree with your move. Aesthetics and beauty are not synonyms. Aesthetics might roughly be defined as the theory of beauty. Changing the article to match the title is backwards. The title should match the article, not the other way around. The article is about mathematical beauty, not aesthetics in mathematics. Titling the article "Mathematical beauty" does not prevent it from being classified under "philosophy of mathematics". I'm going to move it back. If you want to try to gain a consensus for moving it to "aesthetics in mathematics", I suggest you make a case on either the article's talk page or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Paul August &#9742; 20:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dead links
I finally got to that. See my talk page, User talk:Oleg Alexandrov. Oleg Alexandrov 02:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Link removal
Hello. You seem to be removing links from various pages for no apparent reason. I noticed this in anti-gravity, and after checking your history, found that you'd done it on other pages. Quit it. This is considered vandalism unless you have a good reason for the removal, and you didn't supply one in the edit summary field or in the appropriate discussion pages. --Christopher Thomas 14:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I've found more links removed inappropriately (this time at Compiler). It took me all of 2 minutes to find the correct versions of the broken links. Please treat removal as a last resort, with fixing being strongly preferred. --Christopher Thomas 23:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remark
I saw you found the pages of MarSch dealing with how to write a math article. I would take those with a grain of salt, as MarSch likes to insist a bit too much on rigor and making things formal (as such, incomprehensible to non-mathematicans sometimes :) The community apporoved standard for how to write math articles is at How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics. This was originally at WikiProject Mathematics, and has been in development for the last four years. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 23:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Found that one too (only a bit late, so I added it to Category:Mathematics). I wasn't planning on changing it (without consent), I just seems too be missing some details new Wikipedians might want to know about (disambiguation, wether to use Q or $$\mathbb{Q}$$... --R.Koot 23:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Just ask in the usual place. Then we might incorporate the answers in How to write a Wikipedia article on Mathematics. That's still a work in progress. Oleg Alexandrov 00:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: categories
The core problem here is that each of the 8 categories is organized differently. Some have portals, some don't, some use templates, some include everything in the portal page. That's the reason why 1- I can't put the top list in the title bar and 2- why edit buttons arent consistant. For the colors well ideally they should each have a different color but you can pick one if you want. The other portals box is indeed not needed and I thought I removed that. Elfguy 20:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that's fine :) as long as Category:Computer languages is under Category:Computer science. Category:Computer science is in need or some serious ordering.. Project2501a 21:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

null edits
Hi,

I recently modified compu-lang-stub to put the articles in Category:Programming languages instead of Category:Computer science. Rumour has it that you have a bot to perform a null edit on those articles to put them in the correct category.

Cheers, --R.Koot 21:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * One problem with that is that when someone removes the stub template from the page, it will lose the Category:Programming languages, because that is added by the template.
 * What I will do is run the bot to add that category directly to the pages using the compu-lang-stub. You should remove Category:Programming languages from Template:compu-lang-stub, leaving just the stubs category part of that. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix the template now. I'll bet many of them already are in Category:Programming languages, so that will speed up things. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

deletion
Hi, if you want to tag an article for speedy deletion, add rather than. thanks. Bluemoose 16:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Incontrovertible evidence
The more I talk with nobs on the discussion page, the more I think he never had in mind any genuine technical term from any field. I don't know an awful lot about the law, so I can't say for sure whether "incontrovertible evidence" is a technical legal term, but no one's provided any source saying that it is. If "incontrovertible evidence" is his own synthesis of concepts called by other names, then it's a neologism or OR, and doesn't belong on WP. Do you know any technical meaning of "incontrovertible evidence", thus called, as a specific term of art, in any discipline? --Trovatore 18:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The same thing started crossing my mind. It seemed like a genuinem law term, but since I have no expertise in that field so I cannot be sure. I would however like to see the word incontrovertible wikilinked in the mathematics article. However I no longer think that it should be linked to an article named incontrovertible evidence. But I would not know how it should be named eiter. --R.Koot 18:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

categoratasation of comp-sci
OY! you realise you're asking to slay the proverbial dragon, right? with that in mind, how are we going to divide the articles? Project2501a 22:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Arc sine
Hoi Rudy. Ik heb erg weinig tijd op het moment, maar ik geloof dat je er verkeerd aan hebt gedaan om dit artikel op VfD te plaatsen., Wat ik in zo'n geval doe, is de tekst vervangen met "#REDIRECT Trigonometric functions". Als iemand protesteert, dan kun je er altijd nog over denken om naar VfD te gaan. VfD is al druk genoeg.

In feite raad ik je aan om nu het artikel te vervangen met een redirect en op VfD te zeggen dat je dit hebt gedaan. Iemand met ervaring op vfd kan dan beslissen wat er moet gebeuren.

Groetjes, Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyvios and edit summaries
Hello, can I invite you to put an edit summary when marking articles as possible copyvios? Otherwise, at first glance, it looks like a blanking :-) Dan100 (Talk) 14:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, pressed save a little bit too soon. --R.Koot 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

8 portals links
I have no problem with any improvements that you care to make, and admire your layouts. Regards, Ancheta Wis 00:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Changes
Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. We created that category for a reason. Leave us in it please. Espantajo 22:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right, it does. But it is meant to be a list of members. Espantajo 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If "that's not the point" then I see no difference between a category of users from New York or one about mathemeticians and a category of users who are of a particular way of thinking. Maybe you should go decategorize them. Espantajo 23:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I support R.Koot's removal of that bunch of categories from Category:Chaos Chambers. They were inappropriate. Oleg Alexandrov 23:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, can you people keep the conversation in one place? Oleg Alexandrov 23:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

re: vandalism
I'd say applies more to you than me. But seriously, users should not be categorized except under such categories such as Category:Wikipedian_mathematicians and Category:Wikipedians in New York. --R.Koot 22:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's not the purpose of wikipedia. You can however create a subpage (for example User:Espantajo/Chaos Chamber Members) and list the members there. Other people can than include this list on their user page with . Cheers, --R.Koot 22:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

(But of course we can have a list of people interested in math just not a list of people interested in this group... makes perfect sense...) Espantajo


 * You might want to read User_categorisation. --R.Koot 23:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it better now? It's in category:Wikipedians by philosophy Espantajo 23:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

unnecesary heading
Thanks for the message. Because of the formatting in Category:Mathematics the heading was not only ugly (as it is on all the pages) but useless as well. Anyway, I've decided to spend some time thinking on this, and what might be the best solution. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. --Canderson7 01:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've changed the formatting so that the heading is just ugly, not useless, and I'll content myself with that for now. --Canderson7 01:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Edit's
As you might ahve ssen I've changed the info about Rathfarnham Pubs, so they are no longer possible copies. Some of them, like Sarah Curran(Pub) is considered a copy again. The text: Now trading as the Village Inn it's been running under the management of some local barmen for almost a year. They have breathed new life into the pub and it's a great place to go for a few sociables during the week or weekend. The addition of the smoking area with patio heaters and wind breakers have really put this pub far ahead of the other local pubs. They have also opened up a new well managed venue upstairs for bands and comedy acts playing all the bands you'd normally trek to town to see, much better than the old nightclub they used to run. Give it a try. This place has had a massive revamp. The new owners have only taken over a week. They are ex barmen in a local pub and are trying to claw back some sort of reputation. Give them a chance the new bar manager is a good lad and given time will sort the place out. Patience!!!!!!!

Doesn't like anything like the text:

The Sarah Curran Pub is a well known landmark in Rathfarnham, a suburb of Dublin. It is situated at the corner in the old village of Rathfarnham, a short distance from Rathfarnham Castle.It is named after Sarah Curran, who used to live in Rathfarnham.It is now known as the Village Inn. It is a typical local Irish Pub in Rathfarnham village and of the many in Rathfarnham. Main features are the interior that's mostly made out of wood and stone and the smoking area with patio heaters and wind breakers. Upstairs is stage where bands and comedy acts play.

Jorgenpfhartogs 12:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Manifold article
Hi, if you would like your changes to appear in the rewrite, please make them to Manifold/rewrite. It will help us to ensure that your edits make it into the new article. See also Talk:Manifold/rewrite for discussion. Thanks. - Gauge 22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Modular Audio Recognition Framework
Hello R.Koot! This is re: Modular Audio Recognition Framework. I also posted a reply to your concerns on my talk page, please kindly follow up. Additionally, I disagree you decategorized it from "Artificial intelligence" and "Computational linguistics" as most algorithms implemented in MARF come from AI and CL domains and in part were implemented as a part of these computer science courses. Please advise if it's okay to re-add them back. Thanks! --Mokhov 04:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I understood for overcategorization in terms of parent categories, thanks. Also, in my original reply to a bad type I entirly missed the "*" bit, for which I apologize. The way I ended up having "*" is by careless copy-pasting the categories from one of the articles that I thought worthy. I did not realize the effect of "*" back then. I will also add more references to the books and alternative/competing frameworks, so that the promo tone's gone entirely. Re: authorship and deletionist and inclusionists: I perfectly see your point and will try to improve the article with the NPOV guidelines. However, a question here is that for example you describe a person who did something of importantce or etc., which happened to be yourself, like a self-bio (and not waiting for someone else to describe yourself until after you are dead and recognized, are these type of articles also a subject to deletion provided all the other NPOV etc. criteria are met? (I am sure it's answered somewhere; I will look it up, just being ideological and little here :-)) --Mokhov 23:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm an idiot
Regarding Votes for deletion/List of multi-threading libraries You're completely correct: what I wrote was stupid. Just so you don't get the wrong impression of me, I'd ask you to follow the link have a look at what I meant to write. brenneman (t) (c) 11:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Classifying and such
Sorry, not familiar about how to do that. I'm still new at wiki'ing and am just working toward having all NBA players in wikipedia. Trilemma 19:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see how it's done now. I'll add that to future articles.Trilemma 19:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

PortalPage Template
Hello. I have a quesion about this template. The way portals are suggested to be made (now) with the Template:Box portal skeleton the boxes are all subpages of the portal. Could this not be the form followed in this template? It will look and work the same but will keep out of the one-use templates, which are usually TFD'd. I only ask because I would like to spread this form to more than the basic categories but perhaps to others as well(as long as they are usefull), and the number of template created (and maybe required to be deleted later) would be huge.- Trevor macinnis 04:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Waar in 't Bronsgroen eikenhout
waar in 't bronsgroen eikenhout is moved to wikisource including the translation in English. German and French translations are on their way and maybe a Spanish one. Jorgenpfhartogs 15:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hash list and hash tree
Hi R.Koot. Today you removed several of the references to cryptography in the articles Hash list and Hash tree. So I feel obliged to inform you that both very much is part of cryptography. Merkle trees (as hash trees also are called) was considered a major breakthrough in handling and distribution of digital signing keys when those trees were invented by Merkle back in the 70's. And they are still considered one of the best ways to ensure data integrity (preventing from manipulation by attackers) during storing and transporting of messages. And I hope you know that ensuring data integrity very much is considered an integral part of cryptography. And since the primary goal of hash lists is to ensure data integrity in a cryptologically secure way they too are a part of cryptography. Both those methods are much older then the idea of file sharing / p2p systems as we know it today. But I agree on your adding them also to the file sharing category. If you want to discuss the matter further you are welcome to my talkpage or even better to irc.freenode.net #crypto. (Same IRC network as the #wikipedia IRC channel.) --David Göthberg 03:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to put those articles in a more specific category than computer science, the article doesn't make it clear to me however, that they are used in cryptography (only that they can use cryptographic techniques themselves). I removed the word cryptography in the intro for brevety. Cheers, --R.Koot 15:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added some more text on their cryptographic use and background and had some other wikipedians brush up the language. So all good! --David Göthberg 10:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi again! I am thinking of merging the Tiger-Tree Hash article into a subsection of Hash tree. I thought it might interest you. (I'd like to have some one more then me look it over before I "slaughter" the old article...) Please respond on the talkpage of Hash tree if you have any comments. --David Göthberg 12:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Did you see
my note at RD talk about the faulty To browse all categories at once go to Reference desk (all) link in the header template? This post is just in case you missed it. hydnjo talk 19:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just wanted to make sure that someone (you) caught it. ;-) hydnjo talk 19:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

All page TOC
You may be interested to look at how the Reference desk/all page TOC looks now. Please also see Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk for how the discussion over how this worked out. Superm401 | Talk 02:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

A nice shiny barnstar!


Hi Rudy! Thank you for being WikiBold. At 10:16, 25 August 2005 you began the instrumental changes to the reference desk. The initial move to the "Miscellaneous" subpage was especially WikiBold and memorable. Your efforts subsequently resulted in the grand changes to the desk, and ultimately an improvement to Wikipedia's reference desk question asking, answering, and archiving. I also wanted to thank you for your help and dedication during the changeover. I was really happy there was someone to help out when the changes were made. Thanks for being there - it meant a lot to me, and I really appreciated it. In recognition of all this, here is a bright and shiny barnstar! I hope you treasure it, keep it bright, and may it always bring you the best there is! --HappyCamper 02:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

NIST DADS
Thanks for the note about the articles. I was a little bit reticent to add content from that dictionary to Wikipedia because the project page mentioned that some of the information was copyrighted by CRC, but if the links and see also sections are not copyrighted, I'll grab those and add them. How can I tell if info is copyrighted by CRC -- will there be a big notice? Womble 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

the queen bit
thank you for warning me against adding my persistance to yours. i hope i am doing this properly, and that I will not be blocked for insolence.

i entered the 'queen of sciences' stuff originally, although it has evolved a bit since. its ancient origins as a phrase, if it is to be attributed only to those who used it recently, are as relevant as quotes by mathematicians who fulfil Lederman's irrelevant POV, which remains. The fact that maths now reign over sciences, rather than religion over sciences is reflected in the appropriation of the phrase from its ancient origin.

If the link to St Thomas Aquinas is out-of-date, well, it is nearly 1,000 years, what do you expect?

Re WP:CP
I added the following comment to a listing by you on WP:CP. I though you'd like to know. Please pardon the vehamemence, I'm hacking through a gigantic backlog.


 * Ysselsteyn from . --R.Koot 22:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The article is in English, the webpage is in German(I think).  Please link to a exact copy, so poor, grumpy backlog hackers like myself can deal with this stuff quickly. Should be Unlisted the next time someone looks at it. JesseW 19:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Combinatorical algorithms
Are you sure that Category:Combinatorical algorithms is spelled correctly? I think it should be Category:Combinatorial algorithms (-ial instead of -ical). If you agree, I can take care of it. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Science pearls
Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 09:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Rudy,
 * Thanks for joining the project. Can you verify that the subcategories in the physics and mathematics list are suitable? I would like to make sure that no important sub field was left out and that there are no unrelated entries. Thanks, APH 05:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Category browser bar
R.Koot, please let me know where you are willing to discuss this issue, rather than simply reverting my efforts out of hand. &mdash; RDF talk 17:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, why did you revert the categories I added to Browse? I was adding to the parallel structure of the main browse pages, which otherwise come off as extremely arbitrary. &mdash; RDF talk 04:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

user 203.12.22.34
Please block this guy if needed. He just completely vandalized the WWII article. Voice of All  (talk)  04:51, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

SQL isn't relational
SQL isn't relational, so all discussion of relational limitations are actually SQL limitations. I'm fixing this misunderstanding all over Wikipedia.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 19:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read the articles on SQL and the relational model. SQL doesn't implement the relational model, its tables aren't relations. Also DBDebunk, Date's books... but I will try to explain better in the talk pages.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 19:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OR/M actually doesn't exist, as it is used with SQL DBMSs. RDBMSs don't need it. So I'm reverting your revert. As I finish fixing the OR/M article, I will indeed rename it.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 19:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Your change you could have reapplied. I will re-revert your re-reversal and apply your change, but you can't accuse me of vandalism because (1) my changes are correcting a serious mistake and (2) I didn't do search-and-replace.

If you insist on this war I will have to request arbitration or whatever, but I would like you to stop and actually read the concepts on this issue.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The renaming of the article will take care of the incorrect name. Wikipedia should be a reference and fundamentally sound, not the result of a popularity contest. And this has nothing to do with ideology, but with data theory founded on Mathematics and Logic.

Time for arbitration?

-- LeandroGFCDutra 20:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? Should we start an arbitration process or what?

-- LeandroGFCDutra 20:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not against you, it is just that you reverted my corrections without understanding the issues. I will have to check the process which I never needed and thus don't know &mdash; if you want to do it first, it is OK.

BTW I reapplied your change.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 20:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your links. The first is just a series of don'ts; the second isn't relevant; the third is OK, and it asks for us to discuss further instead of starting requests for mediation. Would you like to write me by email? You can find me at leandro at dutra dot fastmail dot fm &mdash; I find web discussions such as this one a pain.

-- LeandroGFCDutra 20:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How are you? :-)
Hey there. How are you today? --HappyCamper 19:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Great to hear. That's an area that I'd love to dive further into. More quantum stuff for me at the moment. I'm sure you got the message I sent you? I don't know if I can do much at the moment. Stuff I'm involved with has flared up again, much to my disappointment. --HappyCamper 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sisterlinks
Bedankt voor de tip. Wat ik me wel afvoeg betreffende de portal page: Waarom staat het template voor commons buiten beeld? Het is alleen via zijdelings scrollen te berijken. Is dat opzet of een foutje? HenkvD 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

PUI
Hi Rudy. Note that when you tag an image PUI, you have to actually list it at Possibly unfree images, too. dbenbenn | talk 21:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Society Portal - Categories Section
Hi there. Does Template:Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Society/Categories still need to be used as a Special Topics section or should it go back to listing categories? --Spondoolicks 10:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Completeness (Boolean algebra)
Hi R. I'm afraid I don't really agree with your move. To me completeness of a Boolean algebra means that its every subset has a supremum, as in complete Boolean algebra. The sense of "complete Boolean algebra" defined in the article you moved may be used in computer science; this is still being investigated. But it should say "computer science" in the title, because it's an extreme minority usage of the term. --Trovatore 16:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I still don't think "complete Boolean algebra" versus "completeness (Boolean algebra)" clearly expresses the distinction, so I've moved the latter back where it was, to complete Boolean algebra (computer science). Maybe it isn't really "computer science" that should go in the parentheses, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. --Trovatore 16:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Gerard
Dear R.Koot,

happy to hear that you have the same coffea area in Utrecht. Believe me that I took the picture at Harvard, five meters from my office, much like the analogous wikipictures of most of other famous physicists - Greene, Weinberg, Glashow, Gell-Mann, Witten, Randall, and so forth. (Unlike others, like Gross, Polchinski etc. whose pictures were taken in California.) Some of these people reported that they like this configuration, to have pictures of them from Harvard, and it may be nice if you kept it.

All the best Lubos --Lumidek 12:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bowen
I notice he's also got his father and grandfather in WP. I also notice that the vanity page banner was removed.--CSTAR 14:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

RDBMS
Glad to see your willingness to help sort out the RDBMS mess that was created a while back. I've done what I can, but some page moves still need to be done. I've posted to the "request for move" page, but nothing ever happened, perhaps due to the low response on the talk pages involved. Any ideas of where to go next? I'd really like to see the whole "_SQL_databases_" mess cleaned up, but the way the original mess was created means we either have to have an admin move the page, or we lose the page history. Turnstep 17:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. Don't know them: I'll assume you will contact. Let me know if I can do anything. Turnstep 19:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. I think I've fixed all the double redirects as well, but please double check just in case. Let me know if you need other page moves completed. --HappyCamper 00:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt
Would you like to start an RFA against him? He regularly engages in the type of sh** that you are seeing on the Scientific Community Metaphor page. Hopefully we can get him banned for a while. Enough is enough. --EMS | Talk 19:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep me posted in this regard. I believe that rules call for at least two complaintants, and I am happy to be one of them.  BTW - Are you aware that Carl has linked Scientific Community Metaphor all over the place?  Just look at what links to it.  It seems that Carl has engaged in his usual habit of seeing to it that anything which he links to has to link back to his work.  --EMS | Talk 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you guys to a RfC first? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Carl Hewitt
I'd say it's generally OK and that the RfC is probably the best way to deal with this. In your list, I think you should add:
 * The discussion on the talk page of Quantum indeterminacy,
 * Hewitt's attempts to link the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to the actor model (which I had to squelch, see Talk:Uncertainty Principle for that) and
 * The rather bizarre view that the lambda calculus is stateful (Correction:--CSTAR as a message passing system) (I think the discussion of that is in the scheme programming language -- which allows him to link it to the actor model. Also the second line of scheme programming language is totally misleading; Abelson and Susmann wanted to understand what a continuation of a computation was (which granted is important in the actor model).

However, I would remove the "let's show them he's wrong" statment at the beginning.--CSTAR 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you could announce the RfC at the Physics and Math wikiprojects when it is ready. Ah, the smell of blood in the nostrils... Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I made some minor editorial changes. More changes should be made, though.  Banning is perhaps too strong.--CSTAR 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Myself and CSTAR have started a discussion page under the RFC. Please see our comments there.

BTW - I for one would not mind seeing Carl banned, but I do think that this should be done in accord with Wikipedia's policies and procedures. This RfC is a good start. If it's restrictions can be mandated, then Carl will need to either toe the line or face banishment. --EMS | Talk 04:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To add: additions at sociology of scientific knowledge as obvious self-promotion of slender relevance. Charles Matthews 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up. I agree that there should be some discussion so just let me know where we can best do that so others can join. I hope you agree that we must have at least one taxonomy for the vast quantity of topics in comp sci if the categorization is to mean anything. I am looking forward to hearing what you have against ACMs but I ultimately don't care myself as long as we come up with something we can all work with. cheers df Dfletter 01:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

-

I agree with you suggestions and look forward to engaging you in discussions. It looks like we are in violent agreement so far; I will elaborate on my plans and thoughts on the page you suggest so we can avoid cluttering your talk page. btw, a good friend of mine here in SF is from Amsterdam so he's been giving me a better understanding of the culture. No insult intended of course, just hast and carelessness on my part. ciao df Dfletter 16:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Informatics
Hi R.Koot--I recommend you take a look at Talk:Informatics for a more detailed discussion about the relationship between Information science and Informatics. Feel free to re-open the discussion there, but please be careful about moving the article contents without explanation. Thanks! --Alan Au 07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi again--The new disambiguation page looks great. Thanks for setting that up! Oh, so in response to your comment, I understand that the European definition of Information Science is much closer to what Americans refer to as Informatics. We treat IS as a more theoretical (rather than applied) discipline, and there's enough overlap that they are bundled together in the same department at the University of Washington (Information School).  The redirect to LIS was set up out of laziness on my part, since I didn't want to have Informatics and IS redirecting to each other, and I didn't want to leave the article blank. --Alan Au 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Architecture of Windows 2000
Sounds like a good idea (I'm the main contributing author) to move it another name. However, may I suggest that we move it to Architecture of the Windows NT operating system line? What do you think? Incidently, what do you think of the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

redirect of Computability theory category
Hi Rudy,

was it your idea to redirect Category:Computability to Category:Theory of computation? I think this is an error. Computability theory is the trendy name for what used to be called recursion theory -- Turing degrees and all that. It doesn't have much to do with theory of computation or even theoretical computer science; it's a branch of mathematical logic. --Trovatore 00:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute
Please see Talk:Model (abstract).--CSTAR 16:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

PCR
Just a caching problem, it tries to stretch the old thumbnail to the new dimensions. Ctrl-Shift-R in Mozilla/Firefox should fix it for you too :-) Magnus Manske 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt
It's interesting that you say I'm calling the "entire affair" nitpicking, when I carefully did not quantify it. While there are legitimate causes for complaint, as is true of every editor, you've gone way overboard in looking for minor things to expostulate about. (If only "over-referencing" was the most common problem with WP articles!) In fact, you might want to reconsider asking for arbitration (it's not too late to withdraw) - it's not uncommon for the arbcom to find against complainants who engage in histrionics. Stan 22:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I assure you I've read all your complaints, and more besides. Just another reminder why I've never stood for the ArbCom, I always feel like I need to take a shower after reading one of their cases. Stan 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk
I'm almost tempted to speedy the new AOL subpage. Do you think it is a good idea? --HappyCamper 00:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

hellow
accordint to the "al-Khwarizmi", some historians claim he was born near Baghdad or even was Arabian,this is a matter of controversy. Any way he wasnt Persian but Uzbeki, and Uzbekistan at the time was under the Islamic Abbasid Empire, also he lived all his life and learned from in Baghdad the center of the Islamic civilization so he is an Islamic scientist.

-reversed edit

Information Science v Computer Science
Right now category:information science is a sub-category of category:computer science and vice versa; a cycle. What do you think of having both information science and computer science both listed under deductive science? There are many universities that combine computer and information science as well as others that combine library and information science. Listing them both under deductive science breaks the cycle and avoids the argument about which is a sub-category of the other. cheers. Dfletter 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt has been accepted. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop. Fred Bauder 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheffer stroke/Logical nand
The various moves performed on this article seem to have resulted in the article being at the former page, and the discussion page being at the latter. I fixed this by hand. --- Charles Stewart 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Computer Science
You stated that my comments are silly and you assumed that I have no degree in Computer Science. I hope such comments of yours are not personal attacks like others. If you do feel my comments are not appropriate then I would expect a clear debate. I have no problems with people who just try to lighten the argument but without personal attacks. If they can dish it out, however, they better be able to take it. Otherwise, it is evident that some do not want to seek a neutral point of view and rather can't resist to belittle others. If you let the wikipedians limit the article only to academic grads, then you let the article to only cover that viewpoint and exclude all else. Even if I showed you transcripts for the degree, what would it proove? &mdash;  Dz on at as  11:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Got your reply... I understood the sillyness. Hopefully the article will progress one way or another and not be locked down by any particular view. &mdash;  Dz on at as  15:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheffer stroke
Well actually, both measures are appropriate, because of the nature of the anons. It's one guy (maybe 2) using an ISP that utilizies dynamic IPs. That means that his IP today will not be his IP tomorrow. As you can see in the history of the articles, the IPs all start the same but they are different. So just blocking wouldn't be a great solution because when you block one, he'll just show up as a different one tomorrow. The idea with protecting is that hopefully in a day or two or three, he'll give up and we can unprotect. That's why we did both measures. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Note
See talk on User talk:HorsePunchKid. I have a comment on your request. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam or not?
You might want to weigh in at User talk:66.54.159.146, since you placed a warning on that talk page. Regards, &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)