User talk:Robert K S
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] DYK
 |
On 8 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Honeywell v. Sperry Rand, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
[edit] Metropolis disambiguation links
Right, the idea is that too many links besides the ones called "Metropolis" would be too confusing for people. The exception is if it is a redlink, so that if, for example, someone wanted to write that Metropolis (utopia) article they would have a place to start (in this case King C. Gillette). It's all explained here. Recury 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] First generation computer
I saw your prod on First generation computer [1], where you recommended that the article be deleted, then have the same article redirect to History of computing hardware. The redirect is a very good idea. However, you don't need to prod the article to make the article redirect to another. I'm fairly certain that making the page redirect to an existing article is not controversial in any way, shape, or form, so I went ahead and redirected the page, skipping the prod step. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scientist Box
Check this out [2]
Also please add your comments you wrote at Von Neumann talk here: [3]
[edit] Talk at top
No problem, and sorry for the overreaction (the problem with edit summaries is you can't edit them if you decide you need to). Thanks for the message. MrBook 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uncited tag in Jennings article
I put the "uncited" tag because if the source is Ken Jennings' website/messageboard/etc., someone needs to cite that as being the source of that assertion. Andy Saunders 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Succession Box
I don't think there is a guideline, but per se, although there is a project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. It isn't really recomended that entertainment figures get their own boxes anyway, it's mainly for monarchys and political sucessions, to have a show that only had 2 hosts, there isn't much of a sucession. I think it just clutters things quite a bit, in the pro wrestling wikiproject, we have deleted any succession boxes for titles on sight. Tony fanta 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [4]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? 129.127.28.3 12:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed message
The removed message was part of general spamming from that user of the same message to many pages in violation of WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ 05:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Von Neumann
Hello Robert. It may be that the publications in the Von Neumann references section mention his preemptive strike opinion, as well as others. Even so, the article decription of each opinion/statement (or at least some of them) needs to be explicitly tied to the publication(s) with a citation... You seem active on this article, so I'll just leave it to you and other active editors to bring it in line with current standards. I understand most of it was taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, but our standards have evolved and the article needs to evolve with them. JDG 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Robert: John von Neumann was born to a non-practicing Jewish family. This is a fact. Your removal of this fact belies a POV problem. Are you embarassed because von Neumann has Jewish ancestry? Why are you so determined to remove such references? Your actions are at odds with the facts, to please, do say why you take this approach. William R. Buckley 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Robert: No my post is not an assumption of bad faith. It is simply a question, put in light of the actions of you and at least one other editor, who as a group have been adding and removing references to von Neumann's Jewish heritage. That battle makes all involved appear to have POV problems. I asked you why you chose a certain approach. To this question, you responded, and for the response I am appreciative. Now I understand *your* reasoning; your reasoning seems sound, and I find no reason to seek change in the article. With your answer, it becomes appropriate to seek the opinion of those others (one or more) who have been engaged with you in the repeated alteration of this small part of the article. Cheers. William R. Buckley 20:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox Fields
Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [5] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Belt picture
It looks like it was a cache issue. It's been fixed. Andy Saunders 15:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Positive Airway Pressure
You tagged this article as limited geographic scope, but provided no explanation of the defects you allege. I strongly believe that the editor placing this type of tag should explain on the talk page, so I removed the tag. I admit that I am mystified: The medical facts and principles of machine design are not likely to be different in Bangalore than in Bangor, and prescribing and insurance information is peripheral and unlikely ever to be exhaustive. If you wish to replace the tag, please explain on the talk page in some detail. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Martinez winner.jpg
Done. Apologies for the error. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DirectShow
Hi, I'm working on an improved structure for categorization of Windows components. As it stands, "Windows multimedia" was being used for a wide range of nearly unrelated things, including third-party software, file formats, video card drivers, audio APIs, themes, fonts, etc. For the time being, it's in Category:DirectX which is part of Category:Windows components. Thanks. -/- Warren 19:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Reliable source schmeliable source
I trust your psychic abilities, but can't we just wait until each show airs on TV? Winners are not intended to be known to the general TV audience before airing. Let's keep it that way. Unless you have a compelling feeling to surprise and spoil readers, in which you should provide sources (other prerecorded reality programs are vigilant in requiring external references for future shows), let the series continue on its course. Tinlinkin 06:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Portholes" in Jeopardy! set
Hey Robert, it's Faith Love. The portholes I mentioned were a bunch of little round windows, all lined up in a grid pattern, with white plexi or something instead of glass. My episodes are on a Tivo that isn't working right now, so I can't double check them, but my recollection is that they were to the left of the cameras, over behind Johnny Gilbert. I don't remember noticing that they'd gone away until I went to the Tournament of Champions, so they were most likely only visible in the studio and therefore a moot point for the purposes of this article. :)
Lusciousmango 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requesting entire J! Archive question subjects
I talked to Andy about this and he directed me to you. I'd like to get a copy of the entire J! Archive of responses, as part of our Missing Encyclopedia Articles project. We would use this list to determine what content is still missing from the encyclopedia. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Here is our Missing Article project page.
If you have the entire list of correct responses saved together, I can work on converting it into a list usable in Wikipedia; I have a lot of experience doing this with several lists from other sources. If you have immediate access to this list, in whatever form it may be (even if it contains "What is..." in front of every response), please save it at User:Brian0918/J! Archive list so that I can work on it. Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-11-26 02:49Z
[edit] All the Young Dudes
Hi Robert. I see you've capitialised all occurrences of 'the' in All the Young Dudes (song) and even moved the page to All The Young Dudes (song). If you check Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Album titles and band names) you'll see that the definite article is not capitalised in the middle of a song title. Just letting you know why I'll be reverting those two changes shortly (or you might like to). That said, thanks for disambiguating Ian Hunter (singer)...! Cheers, Ian Rose 09:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- No prob, mate. I did the same thing myself when I first got here - I've always tended to capitalise all words in song/album titles and a lot of media does the same. However, these are the Wikipedia conventions and since there is method to it I go with it and try to ensure standardisation wherever I can. BTW, that doesn't mean you can't suggest changes to the guidelines - but I never had a big issue with this one. Anyway, I'll bet Hunter was good live. Happy editing and don't be a stranger...! Cheers, Ian Rose 10:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] B&H
Can you verify that? - crz crztalk 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's better than I expected - but clearly not good enough for the article or certainly for DYK... But it is a curious fact, I agree. Judaism owes Hasidim a debt of gratitude for ferociously clinging to Orthodoxy, and thereby preserving it for future generations, even as everyone else around them was modernizing, equivocating, reforming, and capitulating to the "inevitability" of "modern times". Now, so many decades later, they're still clinging. They won't even hire some gentiles to run it on Shabbos - probably what I would have done. That's commitment! - crz crztalk 12:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you run into sysop Ian Manka? He lost on Jeopardy as well... - crz crztalk 21:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- LOL... by as well I was jokingly referring to your recent edit to I Lost On Jeopardy :) - crz crztalk 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikimedia Foundation
Yep, you got it... someone changed the image in the last diff to the article and then someone added an inappropriate image to a template, so I mixed up one for the other and reverted the wrong one... sigh! Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
|
On December 9, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri Wallon (psychologist), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Hello Robert and thanks for the article. Keep up the good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disambig MoS
I kinda like more links, actually, so I don't follow that guideline strictly. There's no harm in them, none that I have ever seen. - crz crztalk 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to poke my nose in here ... there is a down-side to many extra links on a dab page. There is a popup feature that makes fixing links to dab pages much easier than fixing them by hand and the extra links confound the popup, making it much more difficult to use the feature. A second aspect to this matter is that there has been a looong standing tension between 'navigators' and 'explorers' when it comes to dab pages; at the present time guidelines and prevailing sentiment favor the 'navigators' (I am a 'navigator' myself, by way of disclosure) who in turn favor clean paths through dab pages (usually one major topical link per line - sometimes two, rarely two blue links, more commonly one red and one blue - but both topical). I can fully understand the 'explorer' who would want to use the dab page as a tool for branching exploration of topic-space ... but that is not the direction the prevailing sentiment is blowing. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Holocaust Article
Hello, You recently reverted my edit of Holocaust. Did you consider it to be vandalism? Repentance 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Links
Thanks for fixing it. It's actually a dire issue with the template; most instances, it does not required the square brackets & works just fine. Could you please bring it up? Maybe on the template's talk page?100110100 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- No it is not. It is discordant with the other templates: the other templates DO NOT require square brackets: instantly blue link with the template. In any case, there is seriously a problem, a bug in Mediawiki? that would cause discordances in it's effect.100110100 06:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- The template's not working. I'm not going to be on Wikipedia much; couldn't you be so kind to do it for me?100110100 02:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Electral circuit
Robert, your comment on this article's talk page is not likely to be seen by many, and will soon get lost when I succeed in deleting that accidentally created article. You might want to take it up on electrical network or electronic circuit instead. Dicklyon 08:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did that, but if you notice, Talk:Electronic circuit is Talk:Electral circuit. Robert K S 10:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Boy, I made a bigger mess than I thought. I think maybe I've fixed it now, copying that talk to talk:electronic circuit and blanking the electral circuit talk page. Thanks for alerting me. Dicklyon 18:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trebek effect
I can comment/!vote, it's just that I'm not allowed to close the AfD once discussion has ended. I'll chip in my delete, though in this case. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Analog computers, Mark I
It's a lot of interesting detail and I commend you for adding it, but if I might offer, you've put it in the wrong place. That article is a general survey of computing devices and should not include too much detail on any one device. Can you perhaps transplant the Mark I detail to its own article? Robert K S 17:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) PS A warm welcome to Wikipedia!
That's a fair observation, but a problem is that I don't have that much more to add relative to the Mark I. Would you recommend starting a new article with only a couple of sentences and hope others hang more detail on it? While a little wordy, my objective was to work up to the point of saying that the Mark I, like many mechanical analog computers, became ineffective because its components couldn't move fast enough to solve the problem in real time (which was kind of the bad thing when the other guy is shooting at you!).
Electronic analog computers were often faster than their digital counterparts, and produced 'continuous' or 'smooth' solutions that are very appropriate in situations like fire-control systems. The difference between 1/3 and .333 can be significant when it means hitting the enemy plane or not. The problem with analog computers were that they were a pain to program, as the article describes. Boomer 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bushism
Look in the references to the article. its right there. See the oldest book mentioned. It is called "Bushisms". It is from 1992. You can find it on Amazon. I own a copy. The father was just as funny or even funnier than the son. --Blue Tie 23:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is the book reference
- Bushisms/President George Herbert Walker Bush in His Own Words New Republic. Workman Pub Co., May1992, ISBN 1-56305-318-7
Blue Tie 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jeopardy! Teen Tournament 2007
As you may or may not be aware, there will be two teen tournaments this year. I'm in the first which will be aired Feb 5th-16th. I'm Hank Robinson. The next tournament airs in July I think.
THey're having two tournaments this year because of the large turnout due to online testing. Hank el-Bashir 07:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The Teen Jeopardy! website is wrong. Semis get 10k and Quarters 5k. Hank el-Bashir 01:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lukoff ISBN
Re: your edit to J. Presper Eckert. The ISBN as printed in the Lukoff book is 89661-002-0. (I have this book.) I can understand adding a leading zero to make it 0-89661-002-0, but what is your reason/source for moving the 1 to the other side of the hyphen to get 0-8966-1002-0? Robert K S 11:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, didn't mean to move the hyphen. I'll fix that. Also, out of curiosity, is the number printed labeled as "ISBN" or "SBN"? -- Jonel | Speak 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding Callas article "As They Saw Her"
This section and the other quotes in the article are extremely important since Callas is such a controvertial figure. Having quotations from highly respected artists and musical experts allows the reader to look past the simple explanations and get a better understanding of what Callas was and why she was and remains such a significant figure nearly thirty years after her death and over forty hears after her last operatic performance.
Furthermore, quotations regarding voice, artistry, or vocal decline, etc. will allow the reader to get an idea of the variety of opinions surrouding so many aspects of Callas' life. They are neither "original thought," nor "soapbox," nor "repository of links," nor an "indiscriminate collection of information." Especially in sections such as "Vocal decline," it's exactly these quotes that allow the reader to see the diversity and, more importantly, the evolution of thought regarding the probable causes of Callas' vocal deterioration.
"Just the facts, ma'am" might suffice in the case of Sutherland or Milanov or Tebaldi or many other artists about whom there is a general consensus of opinion. "Just the facts" would do nothing to educate the reader as to why Callas was and remains of such historical and artistic significance.
Shahrdad 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia entry removed from "Silent Night."
I don't know what is possibly nn about the trivia entry I made, but I do know the phrase I wrote was not "singing" in complete silence -- that would be idiotic -- but SIGNING in complete silence. And this is amply attested to in many published sources, especially newspaper reviews and broadcast televised specials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamierawson (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Sign versus Sign
For all I know, someone may have "corrected" *signing* into singing; a like is a wise suggestion in this case for that and other reasons. Thanks.
[edit] ENIAC image
Robert, Image:Two women operating ENIAC.jpg was deleted under WP:CSD I8 (you can see that here). I8 means the image was copied to Wikimedia Commons. Apparently it's been converted to a .gif, so now it's available as Image:Two women operating ENIAC.gif. I've changed the ENIAC article accordingly. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- At the moment, ENIAC and the articles on the two ladies in the picture, are all that link to the picture. I don't see anything linking to the deleted one. I suppose it should be ok now, unless you know better! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Between Two Worlds
Re. Nazi air raid - I thought it would be obvious who was responsible; I also had a minor quibble with using Nazi rather than German. As for taking out "the Examiner believes", I have a hard time believing that he wouldn't know the circumstances. How would he be able to pass judgment otherwise? Finally, it's been a long time since I last saw the film, but I thought Henry talked Ann into joining him.
BTW, I see you're interested in Jeopardy. I was a contestant, though I didn't win anything. I was in 2nd going into Final Jeopardy, with just over half what the leader had (something like 5500 vs. 10000). I rarely drink, so naturally the category was Food and Drink. The answer was (can't recall exact wording) "This monk has a statue dedicated to him in Epernay, France." I knew I knew the answer, but couldn't dredge it up in 30 seconds. Nobody got it, but since I had to bet everything, I dropped to 3rd. Instead of a trip to an exotic Caribbean island, I got one to Miami Beach, which I had to decline (didn't want to pay the taxes for that destination). Clarityfiend 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The Luftwaffe wasn't a Nazi organization, as opposed to say the Waffen SS, and the bombing wasn't some Nazi atrocity. As for the remaining points, my memory of the movie isn't certain enough to contest them.
I did tape the show, but would prefer not to have it disseminated on the Net how "Dom" I was. LOL. Ouch. Clarityfiend 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to rant against the "injustice" one time. Clarityfiend 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Callas Article
Robert, I agree about that POV on the recording section. I didn't write that section, but just added the footnote. I might work on the section later, more just to organize it according to which recordings are generally considered her most invaluable. But I think just listing the recordings and refering the reader to several excellent books and articles is really sufficient. My friend Robert Seletsky has written several truly amazing articles about Callas's recordings, which are easily accessible on Divina records website (EMI has often asked for his assistance in restoring Callas's recordings), and there the indispensable "The Callas Legacy: The Biography of a Career" by Ardoin, as well as Michael Scott's book, Maria Meneghini Callas. I think maybe adding something sending the reader to these sources serves the article AND Callas better than a one-line blurb on wikipedia. What do you think?Shahrdad 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michael Scott Article
Robert, please check the Michael Scott (artistic director) article. Why aren't the footnotes for sources showing up?? I'm trying to find more actually biographical information on him, such as birth date and place, etc, but it's proving VERY difficult. I do have a lot of things that have been said about him and the scope of his knowledge, which I will add soon.Shahrdad 16:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it!Shahrdad 22:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mauchly-related research [moved from my user page]
Robert,
Sorry to vandalize your page - I used the 'edit' button because I wasn't able to find another way to contact you - I'm doing some Mauchly-related research and was referred to you by another party. Please email me at evan (at) snarc.net .... thanks! --Ekoblentz 2007-02-01T16:04:17
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:2002-06-18Jeopardy!Set1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:2002-06-18Jeopardy!Set1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EEG 10-20 system
OK I've finished the creation of the page and added the diagrams you suggested... what do you think about it ? XApple 23:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POTY 2006
Your vote was not considered because you didn't insert a valid "diff" link. Please check the instructions Alvesgaspar 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion Review
If you really feel that my decision was innaproproiate or in error. You are welcome to take it to Deletion REview. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Matthew effect
Hello Robert,
I object to your using John von Neumann as a example of the Matthew effect. The article currently says "his influential publications were sometimes restatements of the ideas of his collaborators." You seem to be making a blanket statement that, in all of the dozen or so areas in which von Neumann made major contributions, he was only rehasing the ideas of other people. This simply is not true.
For example, the basic axioms of set theory are called the "von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel" axioms; the work of the first two people came much after von Neumann wrote his one paper (the article on this in Wikpaedia is correct). In fact, with a few exceptions, von Neumann only had time to write one or two papers in each of the many areas that he studied. Consequently, it is more often von Neumann's work that is attributed to others than the other way around.
As regards the two specific examples in the article:
On game theory, I believe it is unchallenged that the explanation of economic behevior in terms of games was original to von Neumann and Morganstern in 1944. On this point you may wish to read the banquet speech by the Nobel prize winners in economics [1] who was speaking for all three of the 1994 winners. Von Neumann's first paper on games was actually written long before the book, in 1926. There had been some efforts by a French mathematician to formulate a theory of games before that, but the poor fellow conjectured it would not be possible to devise a theory of optimal strategies, which of course was von Neumann's other contribution besides the connection to economics.
On the first draft report, the brilliance of it was that von Neumann supplied a high-level description of the logical design, independent of any particular hardware implementation. In fact, he specifically took pains to avoid mentioning anyone's hardware. At the time von Neumann was in contact with everyone working in the general area of computing: besides Mauchly and Eckert this included Norbert Wiener (who was working on cybernetics) and Howard Aiken (who was building the Havard machines). All of these people could have written something, but none of them did. As Konrad Zuse [2] pointed out, "The genius of von Neumann is that he selected out of a lot of possibilities what was really important."
Best, -- Joe
References:
[1] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1994/harsanyi-speech.html
[2] Zuse, K. S., Computerarchitektur aus damaliger und heutiger Sicht, ETH report, 1992. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joseph Grcar (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] First Draft Report
Hello Robert,
I could not follow some of the logic in your paragraph. :-) Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the only publicly distributed description of a modern computer though about 1950 is the First Draft Report. As you say, it came out in May/June of 1945.
The excuse about security is a red herring. After March 1946 when Mauchly and Eckert technically resigned (actually were fired) from the University Pennsylvania they were free to write anything they pleased, but they wrote nothing. For example, the Journal of the Franklin Institute published Vannevar Bush's article about differential analyzers before WWII. As the builders of ENIAC Mauchly and Eckert would have had no difficulty publishing a paper about the design of computers. It would have been the first real publication less than a year after the First Draft Report, and perhaps we would now be talking about the Mauchly-Eckert-von Neumann machine. But Mauchly and Eckert did nothing.
The same is true for all the other early people who worked on computers. Once they read von Newmann's report it was easy to say "Oh yes I know that already, it is what I have been talking about all along" but it was never demonstrated that any of the other folks could have written the report.
Part of the genius of the report was the abstract description of a machine. Norbert Wiener deserves some credit for this because in the 1940s he was working on cybernetics (by which I mean the use of natural biological systems as a guide for engineered systems). Wiener organized a series of gatherings on the topic that included people like Mead and Shannon and he invited von Neumann to attend. It is from these meetings that von Neumann got the idea to use biological terminology in the First Draft Report: memory, etc.
Joseph Grcar 17:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FAC title
Hi, could you please revisit Talk:1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · and/or Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·? Melchoir 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your wikifu is clearly superior to mine.
Just saying hey, roomie.
Thomas B 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
