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)

[edit] Collatz + 495

You added "see also: Collatz conjecture" to 495 (number). I think you should explain the connection, especially since our article on the Collatz conjecture does not mention 495. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jitse, I've added more about Collatz conjecture in both 495 (number) & 6174 (number). Giftlite 15:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 12988816 (number)

I have started an AFD discussion about this article. Please feel free to comment. The discussion will run for at least one week. CMummert · talk 02:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not standard to add horizontal lines between comments in an AFD discussion. I removed the ones you added. CMummert · talk 15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks (for keeping me in the loop & for deleting the lines), CMummert! Giftlite 17:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
...I added those lines. Sorry! ZICO 20:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, ZICO. Giftlite 22:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC) BTW, I'm glad you created the article. It is very enlightening.
I'm glad you like it. I like your additions also. Your magic squares are particularly interesting (I'm still fiddling about with them! [translation: I'm still examining them mathematically]). ZICO 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, ZICO. (I know professional mathematicians and physicists (except Euler, Conway, etc.) normally dislike magic squares.) I tried to cram in as many interesting even, 2-digit composite numbers in the "12988816" square as possible: squares (16 & 64), perfect (28), 42 and 10, etc. Giftlite 22:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that; I made a mistake reading the history. Fortunately ZICO has this page on watchlist. CMummert · talk 23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, CMummert. Giftlite 15:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to "router"

Hi... it looks like you accidentally edited router starting from a rather out of date version of the page; the result was that a lot of the edits for today were effectively undone by your edit. The edit summary suggests you didn't intend that. I undid your change because I couldn't find the change you intended to make, unfortunately. Paul Koning 00:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I'm glad you caught this error, and I will make the change I intended to make last week. Thank you, Paul. Giftlite 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just don't do it again. 155.198.115.45 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verizon FiOS availability article

A tag has been placed on Verizon FiOS availability, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G11 - advertisement about availability of Verizon FiOS service in various U.S. markets

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I see the article is deleted now. Giftlite 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy primes

I reverted your in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Happy_number&diff=140008018&oldid=139995844. You also added 102841+9 in [3]. It appears around 12% of all numbers are happy. It seems likely the percentage of happy primes among all primes is the same. There are more than 5000 known primes above 99000 digits.[4] It would be easy to compute which of them (probably around 12%: 600) are happy primes. Do you have a special reason (like mention in a reliable source) to look at much smaller 10^n+3 and 10^n+9, or is it just because it's trivial to see without computer aid that such numbers are happy? Do you have a reliable source to 102841+9 being prime? It's a probable prime but I don't know whether primality has been proved. http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A088275 is not a reliable source here since OEIS often does not distinguish between primes and probable primes, and many of their alleged primes are only probable primes so far. PrimeHunter 23:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PrimeHunter, it was my pleasure to add those happy primes to the two WP articles. They remind me of the happy time when I created the Chen prime article in July 2005. Recall that in 2005 the maths literature did not refer to these primes by the name "Chen prime." Also, the largest Chen prime was not known at that time. It follows immediately that the lower member of twin primes is always a Chen prime. So before the largest Chen prime was proven in October 2005, we could have mentioned the lower member of the largest known twin primes as the largest known Chen prime.
I'm not too interested in discovering the largest known primes of certain forms, but I think they belong in WP. Their discoverers should also be mentioned. But if primality of the largest known named prime has not been proven, I think we should mention some titanic (or gigantic) prime in its place. For example, 1059999 + 65197 is a known probable prime [5]. Note that it has the same form as 10n + 3 and 10n + 9. If and when 1059999 + 65197 is proven prime, then it will be a happy occasion. :) In the meantime, mentioning 102841 + 9 is sufficient in WP. Giftlite 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If I computed which of the largest known primes are happy then it could be considered original research, but I just looked at the largest proven primes with trivial decimal expansions and computed the largest happy prime among them:
In 2005 Paul Jobling found the palindromic prime p = 10150006 + 7426247×1075000 + 1.[6] The many 0's do not contribute to the sum of squared digits, and 12 + 72 + 42 + 22 + 62 + 22 + 42 + 72 + 12 = 176 is a happy number, so p is a happy prime with 150007 digits. PrimeHunter 16:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. In my mind, you are a co-discoverer of the largest known happy prime to date. :) Giftlite 17:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I consider my part a trivial observation. There is no source to it being the largest known happy prime so I removed that part. There are probably many larger known primes that are happy, but perhaps nobody has bothered to check which ones. PrimeHunter 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I just checked (original research):
Richard Hassler and Seventeen or Bust discovered the prime p = 4847 × 23321063 + 1 in 2005.[7] The decimal expansion has 999744 digits: 1844857508...(999724 digits omitted)...2886501377.[8] The sequence of the sum of squared digits in the preceding number is p, 28495502, 219, 86, 100, 1, so p is a happy prime. As of June 2007, it is the 12th largest known prime and the largest known happy prime. PrimeHunter 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The sum of squared digits in p can be computed by first counting the number of each digit: 99787·0² + 100254·1² + 99791·2² + 99643·3² + 99985·4² + 100132·5² + 100141·6² + 100405·7² + 99810·8² + 99796·9² = 28495502. PrimeHunter 01:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Great! I'm glad you found another one (so soon)! I suggest you publish it. Giftlite 15:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm considering to compute some other results about happy primes and then announce it somewhere (other than just this page). PrimeHunter 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Ding_Ging-eeung.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ding_Ging-eeung.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I got these Chen files from Chinese Wikipedia. Giftlite 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Fjsdfz_jr.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fjsdfz_jr.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I got these Chen files from Chinese Wikipedia. Giftlite 15:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime counting: p(10^23)

I definitely don't understand why you've reverted the old value for p(10^23). OEIS A006880 gives 1925320391606818006727, and a "pi(x) project" value is know to be correct ±1.

http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/table?a=6880&fmt=4 http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Primes/Pix/results.html

where have you found yours?

the first one who changed the value was 84.19.181.92, author of other vandalisms.

81.211.252.48 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)rgh

I'm not Giftlite. The "pi(x) project" made two computations with the same program on slightly different x values and counted the primes between the x values to get pi(10^23) in two ways. The results differed by 1. The cause of the problem was never discovered. It might have been a more serious program error which resulted in completely wrong values. The current pi(10^23) in prime-counting function is 1,925,320,391,606,803,968,923, and immediately below I added [9] that it is from T. O. e Silva. The link is in the references:
This value has been listed by some other sources [10] but not double-checked as far as I know. IF it's changed in the article (I don't think it should be), then the other columns for 10^23 must also be changed, and the claim that the value is from Silva must be removed. PrimeHunter 17:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

rgh, I hope PrimeHunter's prompt and informative reply answers your question. Thanks, PrimeHunter! 65.66.179.181 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Picasa.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Picasa.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] author links

If you want to put an author link in a {{citation}} template it is best to use the "authorlink" parameter. If you put the link in by hand in the "last" parameter it will break the links of {{Harvard citation}}-style references. R.e.b. 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Giftlite 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small references

It would be polite of you to inquire on article talk pages before changing the references to small. I'm not sure that articles such as Second-order arithmetic, which only list three references, have a need for smaller fonts in the reference section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any guidelines or policies in this matter. But I'm going to make the references section small (without discussions on article talk pages) if there are at least three references. Giftlite 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it has ever been described in the policy documents, but when discussed in the past the consensus was that, like changing from Harvard referencing to footnotes, the version of the original or primary contributor shouldn't be changed unless there is agreement to do so. In this case, I don't agree there is a need for small references, and I will restore the original size. I do have a reason for preferring regular references. I think that the small font makes the references look less important, as if they are extraneous. Also, the small font size makes it more difficult to find the references when they are mentioned in the Harvard-style inline citations. There aren't any such citations in second-order arithmetic, but there are some in second-order logic for example, and in Presburger arithmetic and Tarski's indefinability theorem which you edited several days ago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You have made your case, Carl. I'm not going to make references small without discussions first. Thanks. Giftlite 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It's possible that other people in the math project like the small references; I don't want to be the lone holdout if that's the case. So I left a note [[11]] to see what others think about it. If people there like small references, I'll be glad to switch the articles I edit to that format. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi Giftlite. I see you a lot on my watchlist doing fixes and reverting bad edits. That is great. Are you aware of the tool linked from the List of mathematics articles which allows one to see the combined list of recent changes to all math articles? Could be helpful in the great work you're doing. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of it. I've been watching your Mathbot [[12]], instead. Thanks, Oleg! I'm going to use the other great tools, too! Giftlite 16:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool. :) Thank you for your work. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking on disambiguation pages

Hello! I just reverted a change you made to Function, and I wanted to let you know why. Wikilinking standards are different for disambiguation pages than for normal articles. In an entry on a disambiguation page, typically only the first word or phrase should be wikilinked. Including more than one link can confuse readers. For more information on this and other guidelines, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries. Thanks, and happy editing! —Caesura(t) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bit & byte wikilinks

Hello Giftlite. I noticed you removed some wikilinks on articles related to bits and bytes. I reverted some (not all) of your edits because I consider the links to be valuable. Clearly you think differently, so I thought I'd ask you why. So ... why? Thunderbird2 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thunderbird2, normally, before I delete redundant or repetitive wlinks in articles, I ask myself "why," too. Usually my reason is to simplify the articles. If we leave too many redundant wlinks, the articles get bloated and ugly. However, I realize this issue is open to interpretation. Therefore, I leave redundant wlinks alone if I see notes in the articles saying not to delete them. Giftlite (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, but surely, just because they are appear twice does not make them redundant. I think they are fulfilling different roles under "See also" (which identifies closely related articles) than in first occurrence (answers "what's this?" question). Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this issue is open to interpretation. If we go your way, then many articles will show their numerous wlinks in the main body and again in the "See also" section. Who gets to decide which wlinks should appear in the "See also" section again? Giftlite (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not *all* of them. I'm just arguing for the ones that are sufficiently closely related that they would shed further light on the entry. For example, under "See also" of gigabyte I expect to find byte, gigabit and gibibyte, because reading those articles will help the reader understand gigabyte. I don't recall which one, but I'm pretty sure you removed one of those. Do you mind if I put it back? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Go ahead. Giftlite (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. Happy editing :) Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Rubin

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Arthur Rubin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Arthur Rubin. Jeeny (talk) 08:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad User:Cronholm144 already took care of it. Giftlite (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Michael E. Wysession

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Michael E. Wysession, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Michael E. Wysession seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Michael E. Wysession, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Paul Nemenyi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Paul Nemenyi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Nemenyi. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heinrich Hertz

Please consider re-visiting Talk:Heinrich Hertz#jewish ancestry. I'd be interested in your feedback about the suggested edit strategy I've proposed. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vedic square

Regarding [13], Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also says not to redlink in See also (asking people to also see something non-existing would be strange). Are you planning an article or misspelled an existing article? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right the redlinks are odd-looking. I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also policy. Thanks for bringing it up. Actually, I wasn't planning on starting a new "Vedic square" article. I thought by having enough redlinks pointing to it, someone would be interested in starting an article. I think the emergence of geometric ideas and patterns from the Vedic square is interesting and beautiful. Giftlite (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excess wikilinks

Hello, Giftlite. I appreciate your interest in improving math articles. I wrote Signed graph and Biased graph, among others. I see you put in wlinks for "if and only if" in both. Now, I don't agree. Here's why: If you're reading these articles and you don't know "if and only if", you're out of your depth. Linking "if and only if" could be of some value in a very, very elementary math article, but anyone capable of reading an advanced math article already knows all such expressions. Thus, in these articles the wikilink is just clutter. (My principle would be: Don't link basic terms in an advanced article.) I'd like to know if you disagree, before I act. Thanks. Zaslav (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Zaslav. The same principle applies to common words like "mathematics," "function," "real number," etc. I think we need to define what math terms are "basic" and what articles are "advanced" to make it stick, however. We both know what is obvious to a specialist may not be so obvious to a generalist in science. Glad to hear from you. Giftlite (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. One exception: I think we're supposed to mention a general area term like "mathematics" with a link in the beginning of an article, to orient the reader. Otherwise, one has to use judgement, and a specialist can underdo linking as well as explanation. Do you agree that "if and only if" is too elementary to link in most math articles? On the other hand, there are plenty of terms that I forget to link because they're second nature to me. Please keep your eye out for them, and thanks. Zaslav (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced prime names

Your input is welcome at Talk:List of prime numbers#Unsourced names. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the additions. Thanks again for your attention and feedback. Giftlite (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was expecting a little discussion. Something like "Jacobstahl number primes" with OEIS references could be OK, but I don't like the other 3 without a known source mentioning primes of those forms.
Sorry to say this but I also think your new edit should be reverted. Note that Hilbert primes, for example 9 and 21, can be composite (they are Hilbert primes because all prime factors are of form 4k+3). The page is called List of prime numbers and it says twice it is about different types of prime numbers. I don't think it should list other things called something with "prime", and doing so would require some modifications. There was already a Notes section with {{reflist}} so a References section with the same is not needed. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you think "Primes in the Jacobsthal sequence (OEIS A001045)" (OEIS A049883) meets all the rules and regs, go ahead and salvage it to fit the list. I think we need to mention "Hilbert number" and "Hilbert prime" somewhere in WP. I'll revert its inclusion to the list of (normal) primes, and start a new "Hilbert number" article later. If it is not notable enough, we can always delete it later. Thanks again for your prompt inputs. Giftlite (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I now see OEIS says the prime Jacobsthal numbers are 5 and the Wagstaff primes which are better known and already on the list, so I don't think it would be an interesting addition. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] undo in L-System

Hi, you undid my Magic Garden link in L-System, why? There are many similar L-System programs in the external links.

I went to your website and read "There is no plant, because there is no L-System defined. So there is nothing to draw." I thought the program is buggy and deleted the link. If you think it is still worthy of inclusion in this article, go ahead and revert my deletion, Giftlite (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It was first step of tutorial... if you run program and won't define anything, there will be nothing to draw... is my tutorial confusing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.185.161.25 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Wilhelm Schulten

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Johann Wilhelm Schulten, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (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 discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, 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. BJBot (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification etc much appreciated

Thanks for fixing my crude work on Milton Abramowitz. Carrionluggage (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also sections

I’ve noticed you’ve been removing links in see also sections that have links elsewhere in the article. I’m curious why; doesn’t help navigation to have a consolidated list of related articles? GromXXVII (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of the things I've learned in WP, "not to duplicate links in the 'See also' section." I just don't remember where I read it. If you want to make sure, please try the Help desk. Giftlite (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also says: "a good rule of thumb is that it should not repeat links already present in the article". There is no ban on repeating links. I think it can be practical to repeat a few very closely related links on a long page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, PrimeHunter. BTW, I like the way you "deleted" the two wlinks in Hilbert number's "See also" section. Giftlite (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] conflict

I just got a conflict when I tried to save the Gauss's Lemma article. I **think* the conflict was with your edit (I'm still learning how this place works). Please check that I didn't trash whatever it was you were doing, or if it was someone else in conflict

thanks

Virginia-American (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the difference between revisions that might give you some idea if everything is OK: [14]. I don't see anything missing. BTW, welcome to WP. Giftlite (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{col-break}} edit - PK article

I had to revert your See also column division coding in the psychokinesis article because your new type code apparently doesn't work on all browsers. At the moment I am using a Mac with a built-in Safari 3.0.4 browser and the list appears as a single up-down line, no columns. I am away from a PC, so I can't check it on that, but I assume it works okay on Windows. The {{col-break}} method works on both. Hope you haven't done this to a lot of articles. :) 5Q5 (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I see DIV works great with Mozilla Firefox, both under Linux and Windows. Giftlite (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been checking your tag <div style="-moz-column-count:4; column-count:4;"></div> on various browsers and here's my final report: PCs with XP Pro Internet Explorer 6 or 7: doesn't work, single list. Mac with built-in Safari: No, single list. Same Mac with Firefox: works, 4 columns. The tag {{col-break}} apparently works on all browsers, but requires manual sorting to produce even columns. / Looks like your talk page could use archiving. There are instructions for Wiki editors on my User page. 5Q5 (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your browser compatibility research. I will keep it in mind. And I will archive my talk page as soon as possible. Giftlite (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!
Wow. Thanks! Giftlite (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact katpa@cs.umn.edu or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation to participate in your study, Katherine. Giftlite (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, just send me an email and we'll get you started if you are interested. KatherinePanciera (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Delmar

Your edit says "He won a match against Delmar", but I'm sure this isn't what you meant to write. Your edit summary indicates this is a match against Barnes, but it isn't mentioned in the only reference in the article (chessgames.com). Do you have a reference we can add to the article? Quale (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. I'm glad you caught this error, and I will make the correction right away. Thank you, Quale. Giftlite (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this up, but your repair edit messed up a couple of other things. You removed the DEFAULTSORT magic word and removed the interwiki linking. I'll fix them. Quale (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, don't link bare years. Quale (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it seems that I changed a lot, especially all those wlinks and bare year links. Actually, I just changed "Delmar" to "Barnes", and piped "Barnes" to "Robert Henry Barnes". I don't know how the other changes in my first edit got there. Is it possible that someone else was editing at the same time and we had an edit conflict? Giftlite (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harnack medal

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harnack medal, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mpg.de/english/aboutTheSociety/aboutUs/scientificAwards/awardsOfMPS/harnackMedal/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)