User talk:Sam Staton/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 15:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Removal of Subsequent models of concurrency from Petri Nets
Hi!

That is the only section I did not touch in the Petri Net article (as you probably have noticed, I wrote almost all of it, and drawn all the pictures). I do not agree with your reasoning of "The present section (and the word "subsequent") seems to suggest that other models are somehow better than petri nets", but I agree that the section must be edited substantially. Maybe you could take out all the blurb of who said what and what certain professors thought and that sort of bulls*ite. But, at a bare minimum, a list of alternatives to the Petri net should remain, maybe with a section title "Other models of concurrency". Do what you want with the article, I am not the "author" of it or anything, I am only suggesting that at least the bare minimum of information should stay in that section, maybe with a new title.

Cheers, Msoos 10:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

denotational semantics/power domains
Hi Sam,

Could you have a look at User talk:Ruud Koot and assist with cleaning up the self-promotion Carl Hewitt has been inserting in various articles related to denotational semantics and power domains? Cheers, —Ruud 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Denotational semantics
Hi Sam! Just wanted to say thanks for your tireless work on improving the denotational semantics article. It is vastly improved since the last time I bothered to look at it. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Allan, for your encouragement. All the best, Sam Staton (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cardinal
er, trudging - how would that work, Stan? Johnbod 14:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand. Can you clarify? Sam Staton 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Johnbod 16:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Answer to your "echo"
Hi Sam, thanks for writing me. As I allready wrote to "Silly Rabbit" I apologize for my excessive wikilinking. I will try to be more cautious in the future... As I wrote to Arcfrk (Talk | contribs I had in the recent days experience 4 (four) meaningful coincidences and I feel confused because I don't know what is going on exactly. I took a quick look at your uni web page, so I thought about attaching what I wrote him, maybe you have an answer for it. Thanks for your attention. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the remainder of Maurice's message to here.

The Operads Vandal
Is a myth. Give up your search! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.96.225 (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for correcting my typing error in the Requested moves (` vs. '). Bubba73 (talk), 15:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sam
Concerning your question "What does Aquinas have to do with the US?" -- (I presume it isn't a rhetorical question) -- for starters, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia mentioned Aquinas, and his opinion concerning the death penalty in a recent case. And then there is the issue of "natural moral law". That's for starters. I can give you more, if you want. A E Francis (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks and sorry for my ignorance. It might be helpful to explain the relevance in one of the two articles if you think the connection is important. Sam Staton (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Explicit substitutions
hi Sam, I'm not very versed on wikipedia etiquette, but apparently I cannot have a header like explicit substitutions, it must be singular. and yes, producing a new article or at least a squib on explicit subs is the intention. I know very little about it, but I asked a friend to help, he's an expert. I will se how it goes.Valeria.depaiva (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)