User talk:Dto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I will usually reply on this page unless otherwise requested.

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Dto,

Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with two hyphens followed by four tildes --~~~~. The software that runs Wikipedia will automatically convert this into a signature which contains your username and the date and time you posted the message, so other users don't get confused.

I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself on your userpage.

--PEAR 19:02, August User:PEAR/FriendlyDay 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gunn High

Yes, I'm a Sophomore at Gunn. Kazuhite 05:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Warnings

Hello, I'm not sure why exactly my behaviour "has not been too impressive." I'm new at this and if I did anything inaproppriate, then I apologize. I've received 2 messages to stop removing speedy deletion notices (I think you're referring to this); however, I don't know exactly how that happened. As I said, I'm new at this, and all I attempted to do was edit the page I created. Somehow this resulted in the 2 messages I received (apparently, for each time I tried to edit the page). I will not do this again as long as I know what I did incorrectly; I thought I was just editing the page and by no means did I wilfully attempt to remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you in advance for explaining what I did incorrectly. Additionally, my article is a work in progress and by no means a finished product. I did not have adequate time to complete it, however I plan to do so shortly. I would greatly appreciate it if my article is not deleted. Thank you.--Alconi 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to Polish Wikipedia!

... and dont forget to link it on your page... ;p MonteChristof 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects and XHTML

Hi Dto, I noticed this edit you made and wanted to point out a couple of things. First, you might want to read Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken — it came as a shock to me when I first saw it. Secondly, why are you replacing <br /> with the improper <br>? As mentioned in XHTML#Common errors, the former is valid XHTML and provides better compatibility. Pagrashtak 15:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that paragraph about redirects—although I technically did not break any of the rules on that page (Link (The Legend of Zelda series) is obviously an alias for Link (The Legend of Zelda), and it is unlikely that there will eventually be two different articles at the two locations), I guess it wasn't necessary to actually make an edit with few other changes. Regarding the <br> tag, I understand it is invalid XHTML, but it is converted to <br /> upon rendering by MediaWiki. So it's really an aesthetic difference, and I believe <br> looks much cleaner. (For example, m:Help:Editing#Most frequent wiki markup explained uses it in one of its wikitext examples.) If there is already a consensus on Wikipedia to use the "correct" markup, though, I'd happily comply. Thanks. —dto (talkcontribs) 03:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonafide.hustla--Certified.Gangsta

Leave Bonafide.hustla's page alone, please, and stop putting those warnings back. It's a common misconception that it's appropriate to try to force users to keep some kind of brand of shame on their pages, or to force them to archive. (The History is an archive in itself.) Please see "User space harassment" in Wikipedia:Harassment, and several threads currently on WP:ANI, e. g. this and this. The templates about not removing warnings, and the block threats, are for anonymous vandals, not for cases like this. Note that I don't mean to criticize you—the misconception is common, as I say—but please stop now. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

OK. Sorry, didn't know about that, but, just to clarify, I wasn't trying to "shame" him/her either. It appears as though Certified.Gangsta hasn't gotten the intended message, however, because he/she has followed the initial removal of my legitimate comment(s) at Talk:Culture of Taiwan (link to edit), for which he/she was warned, with three more such edits (edit 1, edit 2, edit 3). —dto (talkcontribs)
Note also that the cited incidents on WP:ANI indicate that it is OK for a user to remove a warning once it is read and acknowledged. However, the edit summaries (and contributions) of Certified.Gangsta show clearly that he/she has not acknowledged the legitimacy of the warnings, considers them "vandalism," and will continue to act inappropriately. —dto (talkcontribs) 01:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that won't wash. The nearest thing it says at those links to what you claim is "by removing [them] he's acknowledging that he's read them". See? If he removes them, it shows he's read them. That means you shouldn't put them back. He only needs to read them once, and they're in the History, in case you want evidence that you posted them (and that he read them). He's by no means required to acknowledge that the warnings are legitimate before he's allowed to remove them. That said, I can understood how annoying it is that he keeps up the behaviour you warned him against, because of course you're quite right that deleting other users' comments on talkpages is inappropriate and against policy. He might be blocked for it, as vandalism. You do have other options than putting those warnings back, though. For instance, post new warnings. Use different wording, indicate with diffs the new problems, and for goodness sake don't use a stupid template—that's inflammatory in itself. Please talk to him like a human being, in your own words. (And, this is up to you, but can I ask you to please cut him some slack, at least in your wording and tone, because he feels bad? See this post on my page. And, while I understand that you have reasons for "outing" his new username, and aren't doing it out of malice, is it absolutely necessary?) Or, if you want to up the stakes, I suppose you can post on WP:ANI to request he be blocked. Bishonen | talk 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC).
Of course I'll relax, now that things have been clarified (thanks to you). There have definitely been a couple of misconceptions on my side, the major one being that warnings must either stay or be archived. So when I noticed that my warnings were being silently removed without any explanation on my talk page (for example), I decided I wouldn't let him get away with what I thought was inappropriate and perhaps even somewhat disrespectful behavior. Anyways, I have reworded my comments at Talk:Culture of Taiwan and won't request a block—I'm more interested in making Wikipedia informative than in engaging in time-consuming arguments that don't concern me or the encyclopedia itself much. Watching a single user's talk page isn't the type of thing I would usually have done either, if I hadn't felt offended and disrespected. —dto (talkcontribs) 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CUTE

Hi Dto, thanks for the translation, i added a category, the only thing i could think of, perfect job, you can also translate directly on the page, (sometimes easyer if you use the interwikilinks) just ad {{Template:Intranslation}} until it is finished , Cheers Mion 21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

2, if you want to see what changes can be made you can put the template {{copyedit}} on top, to request a check. reg.Mion 22:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoe Lofgren and Gunn High School

Hi, I'm not sure you know how congressional terms work but I'll try to explain:
1994 ELECTED FIRST TIME
1996 ELECTED SECOND TIME
1998 ELECTED THIRD TIME
2000 ELECTED FOURTH TIME
2002 ELECTED FIFTH TIME
2004 ELECTED SIXTH TIME
2006 ELECTED SEVENTH TIME

Why do you think she has only served five terms? Please be careful before changing people's edits when you're in the wrong!!! Alamar2000 03:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You're right. Easy on the tone, though. Thanks. —dto (talkcontribs) 07:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ^_^

♥Fighting for charming Love♥ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 19:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An edit to p group

(This is regarding [1].)

I think that what existed was correct, but it was unclear. Smallest there meant of least order.

If you consider the set S of all counterexamples where H = NormG(H), at least one has smallest order (orders are in \mathbf{Z}^+ \cup {0}), but working off of the reasoning which followed, we would obtain an even smaller subgroup H^\prime \in S - a contradiction.

Your wording is also fine, though.

Cheers. « D. Trebbien (talk) 02:26 2008 March 24 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment—not sure why I didn't see it right away. The reason I think the previous version was misleading is because the normalizer in G/Z of H/Z is itself, so we are no longer working over G (and, in terms of your notation, S was defined in terms of G). Does that make sense? Thanks. —dto (talkcontribs) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you were completely correct to begin with. It should have been G, not G/Z, which is different.
Sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:40 2008 April 8 (UTC)
Hi Dto,
There is something very odd about this proof and I will have to think about it some more. I miss not having my group theory book on hand. :) « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:23 2008 April 9 (UTC)