User talk:Aaron Rotenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, I have added notes to the discussion page on Shell Sort You mention several gap sequences and then quote a total count of comparisons & exchanges. The strange thing is that the total counts for comparisons & exchanges are identical for each gap sequence. That cannot be right. Stephen Howe 22:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] CopyNight Orlando

Hi Aaron Rotenberg! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please these brief questions to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm quite a ways away from the Orlando area. Sincerely, {{PAGENAME}}. --Aaron Rotenberg 01:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~


[edit] trigonometric substitution

Hello. Can you explain your reasons for this edit? I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this way of using arrows. Mathematicians use arrows of that sort to mean "if...then..."; i.e.

A \Rightarrow B\,

means "if A then B". But I see students promiscuously throwing arrows around using it in effect as a way to try to communicate by pointing and grunting when they don't know the language. Without any explicit and specific statement about what the arrows are supposed to mean in the particular case, I'd rather avoid them unless they mean "if...then..", and even then I'd usually rather write the words. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that—as I said in the edit summary, I am going to make a more proper cleanup of the whole article in a little while. I'll fix it now. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Request for Rollback

Aaron, per your request on WP:RFR, I have enabled your account with the rollback feature. Please read documentation on the tool, and remember that it is to be used for the removal of vandalism only—it must not be used to aid edit warring.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. AGK § 11:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with SP and FS page

Hi. I'm quite interested in fixing problems with the software patents and free software article. I'm wondering if you could give some information on Talk:Software patents and free software to explain the tags. What should it be expanded to cover? What garbage in the article needs to be cleaned up?

Thanks. --Gronky (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gedit?

Hi, and welcome (if You're new here, otherwise just hi and bless!). Do you have any specific points about improving gedit? I'm going to improve it a little, but think it doesn't exactly look like an advertisement, but much more like a sketchy stub. If the stub sounds good it's probably because the editor is fairly OK by my experience, but it's lacking some features here and there, such as multiple window split. Said: Rursus ☻ 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not new here, I just don't edit a lot. I don't really know very much about gedit's features - I only use it every once in a while - so I'm hesitant to change a lot on the page. Nevertheless, it seems to me like whoever wrote the article was paraphrasing another web page in a few places, particularly in statements like:
  • "It is designed to have a clean, simple interface according to the philosophy of the GNOME project."
  • "Some advanced features of gedit include multilanguage spellchecking and a flexible plugin system allowing to dynamically add new features..."
The article isn't as bad as most of the pages I've used {{advert}} on. Mostly, I think the problem is that it lists features without any practical explanation of their importance or relevance which makes it sound like it is just quoting buzzwords. Don't worry about it too much, though - I think that it will look fine if it gets expanded. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Found a page the article paraphrases - maybe we could use it as a reference instead? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see your point, and it's a good point: listed features should preferably be related to a certain general usage, in order to make some sense to the reader and mayhap future user. That could be said of every program, but I've not realized it fully, because I'm thinking code, usually, as regards to programs. Good point! Thanks! Said: Rursus ☻ 19:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)