User talk:Dominus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mediawiki

You say in a MediaWiki page, referring to the bug that categories can't redirect, that the main category should be Category:Sport, instead of Category:Sports. Why? The prevailing opinion seems to be to use plurals, and "Sports" is certainly the preferred term in America, though I don't know about the rest of the english speaking world. --Golbez 05:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which one is the main page and which the redirect, as long as one is the main page and one is the redirect. I only chose "Sport" as the main page because in the main article namespace, Sports is a redirect to Sport. -- Dominus 14:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fibonacci number

Hi Mark - from Talk:Fibonacci number:

"I will add back discussion of the appearance of Fibonacci numbers in sunflowers, pine cones, pineapples, daisies, and so forth. I have something about that written up already that I think could be adapted for inclusion in this article without much trouble. -- Dominus 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)"

Can I encourage you to add it? - it is something I would like to see added, but don't have the confidence to do it well myself. I've been putting in links to Fibonacci number at e.g. conifer cones and elsewhere on one or two pages dealing with conifers. Thanks! - MPF 23:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Fibonacci number/Phyllotaxis. -- Dominus 02:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. - MPF 13:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering where I saw that octupus before (from Wikipedia:Facebook), and realized you're that Dominus! You and your site rocks :) Dysprosia 08:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad you like my web site. And Placido is very flattered to learn that he is so easo;y recognized. -- Dominus 15:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Generals

From your to do list: a nice introduction to the Byzantine generals problem and its related problems in complexity is something I would very much like to see. ---- Charles Stewart 19:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reattribution of edits

Regarding your message at User talk:216.158.52.121 - you're probably looking for Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. Disclaimer: I put a request there a few months ago and it's not done yet! [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 22:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AAPA

Hi, you created a redirect from AAPA -> American Association of Port Authorities, but there's no article there. Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed AAPA on WP:RfD. You need to create something (even a stub will do), or the redirect will go away. Thanks! Noel (talk) 01:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. (I try and use some lightness in applying policy, as opposed to being Procrustean about it...) Noel (talk) 15:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] hi mjd!

nice to see you here :) BACbKA 17:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) (just another lurker on the clpmod)

[edit] Article Licensing

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 1000 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:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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)

[edit] Abramowitz and Stegun

I moved the article back to Abramowitz and Stegun because this is overwhelmingly the name by which it is cited in the literature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:ExplorerCDT

I've opened an RfC on this user for his personal attacks: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2. Since you're on his "nutjob" list, I thought you might be interested. --Carnildo 23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't particularly care if he calls me a nutjob; I think that reveals more about him than it does about me. I don't think that it's worth raising a stink about those remarks, and since I posted a long diatribe on his Talk page in which I explained why he was a coward and a liar, it would be hypocritical for me to object similarly.

I do think the matter of his lies about the Cayley Operational Matrix and Abramowitz and Stegun are a much more serious matter. But although it's quite plain that he was deliberately lying in an attempt to deceive the VFD participants, I don't imagine it could be proved with sufficient certitude to be worth arbitration.

In short, I think he is a pathetic loser, and people like that are not worth the amount of time and effort that would be required to deal with them as they deserve. I'm sure that he is punished enough just by having to be himself. -- Dominus 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have also recently had the displeasure of talking to this user. He refused to include a fact that I had discovered about colonial colleges - specifically that there had been a grand plan to unite all these colleges under the control of an institution that would have been known as The American University. At first he claimed that it was unverifiable. Once another user and myself had directed him to a primary source, he started claiming that it was irrelevant. It seems that he has too much time on his hands. I too have given up. He grew too annoying to deal with. Mat334 20:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image Licenses

I've been tagging untagged images and I stumbled across three that were uploaded by you: Image:Ribosome.png, Image:Ribosome subunits.png, and Image:Ribosome structure.png. I feel like these might be your original creations, but after reading your userpage it doesn't really match up with your other contributions. Anywhoo, I've tagged them as {{unverified}} for now. Feel free to retag them with the correct tag (maybe {{GFDL}}). If you don't feel like tagging them yourself, let me know and I can take care of it for you. Thanks! --MaxPower 17:23, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

You're right I think, the Nupedia article states: "Nupedia was always intended as a free content encyclopedia. Initially the project used a homegrown license, the Nupedia Open Content License. In January 2001 it switched to the GNU Free Documentation License at the urgings of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation." So I will just go by that I suppose. I haven't been around long enough to ever have been to Nupedia ; ). Thanks for the info though, I should have used my brain some more! --MaxPower 18:12, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

[edit] Norman Borlaug

I've nominated the Norman Borlaug article as the next Collaboration of the Week, as the article is pretty short considering that he saved a billion lives. Please vote for it at: Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_Week#Norman_Borlaug --brian0918™ 17:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perldrunks

Thanks for reverting my reversion. Perldrunks looked like obvious spam (it sounded like a 'monks pejorative). I'm glad you caught my mistake. Best, David Iberri | Talk 08:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. I thought it looked like spam too, but I followed the link and checked it out. -- Dominus 15:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Mathematics Wikiportal

I noticed you've done some work on Mathematics articles. I wanted to point out to you the new Mathematics Wikiportal- more specifically, to the Mathematics Collaboration of the Week page. I'm looking for any math-related stubs or non-existant articles that you would like to see on Wikipedia. Additionally, I wondered if you'd be willing to help out on some of the Collaboration of the Week pages.

I encourage you to vote on the current Collaboration of the Week, because I'm very interested in which articles you think need to be written or added to, and because I understand that I cannot do the enormous amount of work required on some of the Math stubs alone. I'm asking for your help, and also your critiques on the way the portal is set up.

Please direct all comments to my user-talk page, the Math Wikiportal talk page, or the Math Collaboration of the Week talk page. Thanks a lot for your support! ral315 02:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your message. I know what you mean about collaborating with people- it can be tough, and not enjoyable to everyone. Nevertheless, I thank you for telling me, and I wish you well in your work, and as a Wikipedian. ral315 15:39, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics Project Participants List

Hi Mark. After some discussion here, I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". I'm letting you know, so you can update your entry, if you want.

Paul August ☎ 23:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] perl main article

hello, ordinary perl monk from germany, (beside the fact a big fan of your) currently writing de:Perl. and yes maybe to early because the artikcle is nearly half ready as yours but i see that your article seems a bit unstructered and also written in whole different style. are the japhs here happy with it or to lazy or you think i doesnt make much sense to synchronise it. thanks for answer.Lichtkind 18:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

understood, so when im happy with my german version i hopefully try to translate it and show you and the other current editors of the article to correct or merge it, best wishes, BTW selfadvertising-->currently im developing an gpl crossplatform editor in perl it will maybe become en full fledged PerlIDE on top of perl6, something that we miss if you have any wishes or ideas for it let me know.Lichtkind 20:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whether you wear boxers or briefs

Do you wear boxers or briefs, Heegoop, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bank of America Tower merging

Hi, I saw that you suggested that Bank of America Tower at One Bryant Park be merged into Bank of America Tower, New York City. Just wanted to let you know that I'd support either one being merged into the other. To be honest, I didn't realize that an article on the tower already existed before I created Bank of America Tower, New York City, mainly because I went to the Bank of America article and saw a link going to Bank of America Tower, New York City that was red and decided to fill it in. Anyway, whether the New York City one gets merged into the Bryant Park one or the Bryant Park one gets merged into the New York City one is fine with me. Thanks, Jaxl 13:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much preference as to which should be merged into which; I only suggested the direction I did because one of the articles seemed a little more extensive than the other. -- Dominus 13:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know there was another article, then. I'll see if I can take care of it. Jaxl 13:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. -- Dominus 17:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John A Roebling-- August v. Augustus

I get 8600 hits on "John Augustus Roebling" and 675 hits on "John August Roebling". It is possible he used both forms. I am inclined to change the article name to the Augustus form, due to the prevalence-- also, Britanica uses Augustus, and his son's middle name appears to have been Augustus. Any arguments against the move? (you made the Augustus article a redirect to August back in Sept 10, 2003, maybe because they were both stubs but the August article was a tad longer?) TIA, Mwanner 21:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

At that time, the "Augustus" article was only one sentence long, and i did not think carefully about the naming issue. It seems to me that "Augustus" is clearly an angliciszation of his original name "August", just as "Roebling" is an angliscization of "Röbling", so having the main article under "John August Roebling" does not make too much sense. But really the right thing to do is to find some authoritative source (not a Google search) and put the main article under the name under which he was primarily known in his lifetime, and redirect everything else to there. Thanks for noticing this issue. -- Dominus

[edit] RE: Ports

Howdy, I am disappointed that you only added one port to the Bulk Cargo article. You could have added more than just that one, it gives the article a bias, POV, slant.

I disagree, contest, argue. -- Dominus 13:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, I thought you might like to know that the Port of South Louisiana is not the only port effected by Katrina, nor are the other ports tonnage listed with the Port of South Louisiana totals. Here are the other major ports affected:

• Port of South Louisiana
• Port of New Orleans
• Port of Baton Rouge
• Port of Plaquemines
• Port of Lake Charles

Sources:

• USACE top 150 U.S. ports; all 5 listed
• Port of New Orleans listed at number 38, 76,116 tons @ AAPA

WikiDon 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The golden radio

Hey Mark, is the reference on your talk page intentional? Or was it a typo too good to kill? Hv 01:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally unintentional. -- Dominus 04:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User categorization

Greetings, Dominus! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Pennsylvania and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pennsylvania page. This page will be removed when all users have been removed. Even if you do not wish to be placed in a category, could you take a moment to remove your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Pennsylvania page? Thanks!

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- CComMack, fellow Pennsylvanian, on behalf of the User Categorization Wikiproject

[edit] Chalky White

Hi. A very minor and inconsequential question - I noticed you'd redirected Chalky White to You are X and I claim my five pounds. Chalky White is a character by cartoonist Chris Ware who I'm about to do some work on. Currently the character doesn't really warrent a Wikipedia page (though it may in the future) but the redirection has me utterly puzzled. Could you enlighten? Peteashton 01:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

See Lobby Lud. -- Dominus 04:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Peteashton 08:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jaeyounkim

You put {{delete}} here because it was a vanity page.

I didn't. That user created a "Jaeyounkim" article in the main article namespace, and I put the speedy delete tag on that article. It was subsequently moved to the User: namespace.

But that's the user's page and he has every right to edit it as he wants.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia Project

Hi i have noticed that you have edited several articles on subjects related to the Philadelphia area. Several other users and myself have got together to creak a project to help improve, expand, and create articles concerning the Philadelphia/Delaware Valley region. While our project is still new, we are inviting people to join us to help it get started off on the right foot. You can find the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia, feel free to add your name and drop off an suggestions that you might have. If you have any questions, drop me a line anytime. Thanks. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation. I don't think I am really cut out for organized projects or collaborations, because the time and opportunity I have for editing is irregular. Also, strange as it may sound, I don't like collaborating with people. But I do think your project is a good idea and i wish you the best of luck with it. -- Dominus 14:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats cool, the inviatation is allways open, and their is no requirement for workload or anything like that. Feel free though, as you can, to help us out with adding articles or improving existing ones, and to drop a line a question or a comment as needed or to chime in with your opinion. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 00:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schur's theorem

Just in case you haven't noticed: I have posted an answer to your comments at Talk:Schur's theorem. I would like to hear your opinion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latitude city list

Hi: Have taken a few liberties with your city list - you might like to have a look and see if i've mortally offended you with any of my edits :) It also needs some maintanance that i'm not sure how to do...

[edit] 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 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia: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 - Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Image:Bobby-pin.jpg listed for deletion

Nv8200p talk 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia: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:

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.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! bd2412 T 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Image:Checkers.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ^{[citation needed]} ). 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.

[edit] 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 clique of colour i for some i, is . (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(n₁,...,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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Invite

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Philadelphia, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Philadelphia. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

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

[edit] Philly meetup

Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Mega Society

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

Talk:Mega_Society