User talk:Giftlite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 18:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Welcome. Please write in complete sentences, and check out the above links for properly formating articles. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:04, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I've got a little question about one of your recent edits - see Talk:Paul Morphy. Thanks--Camembert

Just a note, Wikipedia standard is (b. 1952), not (1952-?); the latter, which you used with Henrique Mecking tends to be macabre. However, if Meckling is indeed deceased, you can put (1952-19??). Chow! -- user:zanimum

[edit] Question about moons of Jupiter

When you say that Lysithea is the 12th moon of Jupiter, does that mean that it was the 12th discovered, or that it's the 12th largest moon of Jupiter, or that it's the moon with the 12th farthest away orbit from Jupiter? PrimeFan 19:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Distance. Would that be distance at apogee or perigee? Do any of Jupiter's moons have a perigee that's closer to the planet than a moon which is normally less distant but at apogee is actually more distant than the moon at perigee? PrimeFan 19:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Answer 1: The distance is mean distance, which is the semimajor axis.
Answer 2: See Kepler's planetary laws to help you calculate the distances. GiftLite
Is this a standardized way to number them (Jupiter (planet) doesn't include it) or is it one you introduced? -- User:Docu
I use the Mean orbital radius (km) ranking. I think this is the way NASA numbers them, too. Giftlite

Hi Giftlite, once a "Votes for deletion" notice has been put on a page, it is not supposed to be removed until people have voted and there is a decision made. This is so that readers coming to the disputed page can know that there is a vote going on and maybe participate. Please let the notice remain on List of people who died of starvation until a decision is reached. Jay 09:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

hey, on the prime number page, you added the text:

"==Prime Numbers in Science== Pradeep Kumar, Plamen Ch. Ivanov, and H. Eugene Stanley discovered an interesting pattern in the distribution of prime numbers."

could you add at least some more info about that? (who they are, what pattern, references and etc..) Kieff 03:14, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Kieff. Most of your questions are answered on the Talk:Prime number now. Check it out. Thanks. Giftlite 02:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Backgammon

Giftlite hi. There's an anon challenging the claim that backgammon is the oldest recorded game. Since you added that text, could you explain in Talk:Backgammon exactly what you had in mind? Thanks. Gadykozma 14:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Backgammon is the oldest game in existence. I added a reference in the Talk page. I hope that helps. Giftlite 04:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[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:

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] Image tag

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

  • Image:E7AnDu.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

[edit] Substubs

Hi. Please add more to your articles beyond "so-and-so is a chess player." A substub has to have some minimum content. As it stands, the contributions are speedy deletion candidates. Thanks, and feel free to leave word on my talk page if I can answer any questions. Best, Lucky 6.9 00:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • All my articles are Work-in-Progress. Giftlite 01:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] minor edits

just a friendly reminder...when adding content to an article, please don't mark it as a minor edit. minor edits are meant for changes in spelling and punctuation, etc. cheers! Kingturtle 04:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  • For example, when adding a birth to a date page, it would be helpful to others if you wrote Births +Veselin Topalov in the comments field. cheers, Kingturtle 00:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder. Giftlite 01:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Oleg Alexandrov 23:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the reminder. Giftlite 00:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chen primes

I'm embarrassed about this, but I have to admit I misunderstood what a Chen prime was, because I failed to pay attention to the equation. I saw "p + 2" but somehow read "2p + 1". Thus, I misunderstood Chen primes to be Sophie Germain primes, but with looser requirements.

The problem remains that I don't know where to turn to educate myself further on the matter. For instance, where would I find the Tao-Green paper you mention in the article? PrimeFan 17:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think Wikipedia is a great place to start educating ourselves. I use it to test new ideas and discoveries. Google is also a great tool. I have added a link to Green-Tao paper in Chen prime article for you. I'm glad you find math, in general, and number theory, in particular, interesting. Giftlite 23:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dirichlet primes

Hi, do you have a reference for this name? I found some references (eg (sequence 2476 in OEIS)) to primes of the form 3n+1 (or 6n+1), but nothing that called them Dirichlet primes. Hv 10:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I also failed to find a reference for the name. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Dirichlet prime, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Dirichlet prime. You may remove the {{dated prod}} template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. PrimeHunter 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • PrimeHunter, I've researched the maths literature in the past few days, and have not found anything (other than in WP and its clones) that calls these primes by the namve "Dirichlet prime." Therefore, per your stated WP policies above, this article should be deleted. Giftlite 16:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "(x) prime"

Hi, I like the work you're doing finding new types of prime to add to the list of prime numbers. I feel that in cases such as the Motzkin primes it's fine to add them to the list, but no need to add the Motzkin prime stub - it should be sufficient to add a short note at Motzkin number:

A Motzkin number that is also a prime number is called a Motzkin prime.

and link to that page from the list of prime numbers entry.

This is on the assumption that there is little extra to be said about Motzkin primes, and so the page will forever remain a stub; if in the future that assumption should prove false it will be easy enough to split it out again.

I think this approach could be applied to several recent additions such as self prime, highly cototient prime, star prime (but I haven't tried to go through the whole list). Hv 11:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for alphabetizing the list of prime numbers. You have made it easier for me to add new primes. I hope to expand the new pages I created as I find new prime connections and information. Giftlite 01:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I generally like articles about special prime forms when there is something to say about known work. I recently created prime triplet and may make more, but I agree with Hv's comments about stubs like Motzkin prime, highly cototient prime, star prime. These and some others called "x prime" are only a couple of lines which would fit well in the "x number" article. I consider a Wikipedia:Merge of "x prime" into "x number" (leaving a redirect) when the former only says something like "An x prime is an x number which is prime. The first x primes are ...". If more information is added later then "x prime" may qualify for its own article, but these tiny stubs are over a year old. Another thing: Are there cases where you invented the term "x prime" for an "x number" which is prime, when others have never used the name "x prime". Mathematicians have done the same for many specific x, but I don't think Wikipedia should introduce a name like "x prime" on its own, even if no article is created about it. For example, list of prime numbers contains "McNugget primes" which only has Google hits to Wikipedia and clones. It's obvious from McNugget number that all primes above 12 are "McNugget primes", so why make a name for it or even discuss such primes? Google also only has Wikipedia and clone hits on "Wedderburn-Etherington primes" and possibly others. Hv asked for references on the name "Dirichlet prime". Do you know any which use the name? On an unrelated note, you may want to look at Talk:Prime_gap which discusses the prime gap table you want to insert. PrimeHunter 23:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
PrimeHunter, I'm sorry I just got back from a long trip, and did not check my talk page (and e-mails) for weeks. I see you're trying to clean up a lot of my edits. I appreciate your checking with me before undoing my edits. Let me remind you that I'm just one of many WP contributors, though. If you think some of the entries you mentioned above are incorrect or inaccurate, by all means, please edit and improve them. Other contributors in turn will have a chance to edit our contributions, too. Personally, I like your ideas, too. About the prime gap table, I did not start the table, and I haven't checked its accuracy. I just want to keep it there because I think the article needs it. Giftlite 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. Within a few days I may officially suggest a Wikipedia:Merge on some of the tiny prime stubs, and edit prime names Google doesn't have hits for outside Wikipedia. PrimeHunter 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just suggested a bunch of merges. See Talk:Star_number. PrimeHunter 18:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7-digit primes forward

The point of the lists at the end of articles like 1000000 (number) is to identify large numbers that might merit their own articles.

Per WikiProject Numbers, three interesting properties are necessary to even justify giving an article to a large number that is not a power of 10 (and even for those there are limitis).

Being a prime number is not interesting enough, the primes are too common (you can find bears crapping them on the Web). I'm sure you know how to figure out how many 7-digits primes there, if you don't know it already. There are too many to list at the pages on one million, ten million, etc. Chen primes and Eisenstein primes are almost as common. Wolstenholme primes, on the other hand, are rarer and worth listing. PrimeFan 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As you already know, I find prime numbers very interesting. However, I didn't know a line has been drawn to list large numbers that have three (3) interesting properties. Giftlite 23:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Food

Hello, I see from your contributions that you are interested in food ;-), but please take care when editing the articles to not delete interwiki links. Thanks! SpeedyGonsales 12:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. It gave me food for thought :). Thanks for the correction. Giftlite 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikilinks

Giftlite, please quit going around adding random wikilinks to common words. These harm rather than help readability. There's something about it in WP:MOS. --Trovatore 00:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the flag. I place relevant links, not random links. Please point to a random link. Giftlite 02:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Random" was perhaps not the right word. My observation is that the links you have been adding have in general been links to articles on common words. In my view, links to articles on broad topics such as infinity (such as in this diff) are appropriate only in very limited circumstances, such as when the referencing article is using the concept in a way that strongly suggests the reader may want to look up the linked-to article. They should not be linked as "by the way, here's something you might find interesting"; this is a reasonable thing to do when the linked article is written on a narrow, specific topic, but not when it's on a broad one. --Trovatore 02:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't get your interpretation in the MOS. However, I like your suggestion. Thanks. Giftlite 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why in the Game theory article, you keep changing the link computer science to computer scientist which just redirects to computer science? Why not just leave the link to point to the intended article directy? Pete.Hurd 22:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to simplify links like computer scientists to computer scientists. Giftlite 17:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how an unnecessary redirect is a simplification... Pete.Hurd 03:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You may change the simpler link back to the complicated link if you wish. Giftlite 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 260 and 270

There is a move afoot to delete 270 (number). If it succeeds, it could pave the way for deleting the article you created on 260 (number). Anton Mravcek 23:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Anton. Giftlite 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks again

Hi Giftlite. I noticed you were adding in links a while ago, and now you are removing many links. I know why, there should be no more than one link per concept per article, but really, is it worth the trouble? :) One can easily write a bot to remove extra links, but I would think they better left the way they are, there are other things one could spend time on improving. Wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oleg, I agree with you on a lot of other things I can do to improve WP. I open and edit as many articles as I can to see what articles have been done already. I do this to monitor as many interesting articles as I can. Along the way, whenever I see annoying duplicate links, I delete them. If that's the only imperfection I see, then there is not much more I can do to improve the articles in a glance. Lately, I can tell the articles I've opened are of much higher-quality than the ones I opened months ago. It is much harder to find errors in the articles or improve them now. In other words, in quality control, this means WP is improving steadily. I'm thinking of other things I can do for WP now. Giftlite 15:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you are of much better opinion of Wikipedia articles than I am. :) By the way, if you want to work on things, see Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of planets

In regards to your edit to eight, I take it that the astronomers voted Pluto is not a planet anymore? Anton Mravcek 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, about 3000 thousand astronomers counted their votes today, and Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet. Now "My very enormous monster just sucked up nine planets." is false. :) Giftlite

[edit] Graham's number

This message is regarding the article Graham's number. The last 10 digits is interesting info; how is it inappropriate?? Georgia guy 01:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Being interesting doesn't make it a true statement. Tell me, what kind of calculator can output the 10 digits. Think about it. Giftlite 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death toll from Typhoon Saomai

I caught your edit by mistake earlier today when reverting some vandalism in the previous edit. I looked at the Typhoon Saomai article itself, and it did not support the higher death toll, so I left it be. You need to make sure the Typhoon Saomai article does support the higher death toll. -- Donald Albury 00:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Typhoon Saomai article says, "Fatalities - At least 441 total[3]". I think my estimate, about 450, is close enough. Giftlite 02:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novell

Hi, just to let you know I've returned the paragraph on the Novell Microsoft agreement back to the way I originally wrote it. I don't believe this is a case of "embrace, extend and extinguish" and I can't remember anyone expressing that viewpoint in the three citations I gave for community reaction. Also, the addition to the sentence made it ungrammatical. Please get back to me if you think this MS strategy does apply in this instance with a citation from somewhere supporting this view. Thank you. Oska 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oska, MS philosophy is not a matter of beliefs. I have added another link to the article. Giftlite 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Giftlite in response: 1) I believe you mean ‘business strategy’ not ‘philosophy’ in yr reply above - philosophy must rely on beliefs as it's fundamental axioms. 2) You seem to think I am denying that MS uses the Embrace, extend and extinguish strategy - not at all the case, however I don't think it is being used in this instance and neither do many other people. The GPL is forcing MS to use a more subtle strategy this time. 3) You are messing up my sentence both syntactically and semantically - the sentence is describing reactions in the FOSS community - Daniel Lyons (the author of yr citation) is definitely not part of that community and is mostly considered a joke inside that community as he always misunderstands and misinterprets the nature of Free and Open Source Software developments. That's the semantic problem. The syntactic problem is that that my two subordiante clauses hang off "expressions of" and yr insertion has not worked either time in this sentence structure. I appreciate yr including a citation but it wasn't relevant to my sentence. If you want to persist in adding yr "embrace, extend, extinguish" viewpoint please do it in a separate sentence or paragraph. 4) I will continue to argue the case that this latest move is a more nuanced and different strategy. 5) I have removed yr insertion again. Oska 05:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I've copied these 3 comments over to the article's discussion page. If we are to continue this debate I suggest we do it there where other ppl can easily join in. Oska 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oska, in response: 1) I mean MS philosophy is not a matter of 'our' beliefs. 2 & 3) I found several articles on the Internet, one of them is Lyons, about this MS philosophy and Novell deal. 3) Sorry about 'messing up' your sentence. Please remember, however, we are not the only two WP contributors. Others in the future might mess up our sentences (and articles), too. 4) I see where you stand. 5) I agree with you that this discussion belongs there now. And I will let other WP contributors decide there. Giftlite 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'ello

I believe you beat me to several vandalism reverts the other night, so I thought I'd give you this. We could all use more, right? Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 00:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:1upmushroom.png

Thanks! Giftlite 16:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey -- had to remove the image, but it's still there behind a link. It's a fair use image not allowed in user space, per WP:RFUI and WP:FU. Sorry. Mangojuicetalk 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Sebastian. I see the article is already cleaned up and improved to the point that it's worth keeping now. Giftlite 16:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 19:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

You did not leave a reason for reverting my edit. How am I to learn how to be a proper Wikipeditian? But seriously, just curious why you reverted it... 210.55.244.61 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your additional info is too trivial for WP. However, if you think it's a worthwhile entry, you're welcome to revert mine. Before you do so, I suggest you sign up. That's one way to be a proper Wikipeditian, I think. Giftlite 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You reverted mine[1], too, without explanation, in contravention of guidelines. I changed an inconsistency in the text ("A few" pointing to what is better described as "many" or at least "some") and it was instantly reverted. QuilaBird 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought your change from "A few" to "Many" was unnecessary. If you feel strongly for using the word "many," go ahead and revert my entry. Giftlite 21:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capablanca vs Kostić

Hi ! It is a problem with any information on Capablanca's and Kostic's games during World War I in Latin America. I have found the following facts about their matches: 1. "W czasie wojny Capablanca wygrał 3 turnieje w Nowym Jorku ( w latach: 1915, 1916 i 1918) oraz zwyciężył Kosticia w meczu w Buenos Aires z wynikien +12 -2 =0 (1915). W 1919 r. doszło do ponownego spotkania z Kosticiem, tym razem w Hawanie. Zwycięstwo Capablanki było druzgocące (+5 -0 =0)." [During World War I, Capablanca won three tournaments in New York (1915, 1916, and 1918) and won Kostic in a match at Buenos Aires 1915 (+12 -2 =0). In 1919, he met again with Kostic, in this case in Havana. Capablanca's victory was crushing (+5 -0 =0).]; Władysław Litmanowicz, Jerzy Giżycki, "Szachy od A do Z" (Encyclopedia), Warsaw 1986, ISBN 83-217-2481-7. 2. "Vinse gli importanti tornei di New York 1915, 1916 e 1918, e di Hastings 1919; intanto batteva in matches individuali Teichmann (Berlin 1913: + 2 = 0-0); Mieses (Berlin 1913: +2 =0 -0); Kostic (due matches a Buenos Aires e all'Avana)." http://www.queen.it/web4you/noprofit/keres/txt/a24.html 3. "Capablanca v Kostić (non-existent match in 1915) CE 162". http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/factfinder.html

All the best to you, and Happy New Year! Mibelz 12:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mibelz, I'm sorry I just got back from a long break. None of the online PGN databases I know of has Kostić's victories. Looks like the stats are genuine. Thank you, and I wish you a very happy and successful new year. Giftlite 19:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capablanca vs Jaffe

Capablanca lost one game to Jaffe in American Masters Tournament at New York 1913 (January 19th/February 5th) http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~goeller/marshall/tournaments/index.html Mibelz 15:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the online databases do have Capa's only loss to Jaffe. Giftlite 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Floppy disk

Hi, just a note to explain why I have removed the external link that you added. This story is already in the article with a similar reference so an external link is not necessary. There is also now a new section Demise of the floppy. TerriersFan 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sander P. Zwegers

Hi, Giftlite.

I noticed this article, and I'm curious why you think this mathematician is notable. I can only find one article that he wrote, in 2001. Thanks! DavidCBryant 11:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

David, I think Zwegers is notable because Ono and Bringmann build upon his mock theta function work. And lately they all made the news: [2]. Giftlite 15:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccinium, links, and redirects

If you could take a look at the question I just added to Talk:Vaccinium about the whortleberry and lingonberry links, that would be great. Kingdon 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the factors...

... for the groups we're counting (at Classification of finite simple groups). I would have filled them in myself eventually, honest :) Anyway, thanks for reminding me what a great place wikipedia can be. Geometry guy 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved problems in mathematics

At Category talk:Unsolved problems in mathematics I have asked whether articles should be put in this category if they only mention an unsolved problem briefly, e.g. in one sentence. PrimeHunter 10:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/f/User_talk%7EGiftlite_b9de.html"