User talk:Dominus/Archive (2008)


An article you helped edit is now on WP:UNI/COTF

The current University Collaborations of the Month are
Ohio State University
&
Princess Nora bint Abdul Rahman University

Every month two B-, C- or Start-Class higher education-related articles are chosen for you to improve. Be bold!
This COTM is organized by WikiProject Higher Education. (vote for future collaborations or see past collaborations)
This collaboration is effective: May 20, 2011 — June 20, 2011 until someone updates it.
Pick the next WikiProject Higher Education COTM!

A new round of WikiProject Universities Collaboration of the Fortnight will begin on 04 Jan 2008. Please take a look at our WikiProject article guidelines and help improve the articles. If you have any questions regarding the COTF or have questions/problems on how to improve the article, please place them here. Thanks and Happy Editing! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Stirpes

I am curious to learn why you delete the link to a Per Stirpes Calculator from the Per Stirpes article. Particularly as per stirpes most often applies to intestate distribution and the link is to a site providing detailed information about intestacy.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.5.152 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a catalog of links. It is an encyclopedia. Your Per Stirpes calculator is irrelevant to Wikipedia's function as an encyclopedia. -- Dominus (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Beginning with the hard bound, printed versions, encyclopedias have routinely cited references to sources of further information. Doing so did not cause them to become nothing more than collections of references.

Links to tools and further explanatory information not only fulfill the goal of providing people with the greatest amount of quality information, they are also quite prevalent at Wikipedia.

Choosing "Random Article" five successive times revealed the following articles, four of which contain links under th heading "External Links" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_R381; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliex_Yuill; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Schalck-Golodkowski; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pud_Galvin; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_railway_station)

Accordingly, the link will be re-added beneath such a header. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.10.205 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of articles have external links. The question is whether the external link is to a resource that advances Wikipedia's mission as an encyclopedia. For example, the article about Aliex Yuill links to Aliex Yuill's web site. The link you added has no such authority or relevance. It's just one of many finanical calculators.
Moreover, the existence of inappropriate links in one Wikipedia article can't be used to justify inapparopriate links in another article. People come along all the time and want to add links to their own sites to improve their search engine ranking or to get outbound referrals. Wikipedia is edited by volunteers, and not all inappropriate links are removed timely, or at all. I think your link is clearly inappropriate, and it should be removed regardless of what links are still present in a random sample of articles.
-- Dominus (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked with some other folks to see if they shared my opinion that your link lacked encyclopedic value, but they did not. Thanks for your contribution. -- Dominus (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to check with others.

Given your interest in and knowledge of this subject, I did not expect your reaction to my site. Particularly as it is a free resource. While I am not a software engineer and I'm certain that my programs are very, very sloppy, they do the trick and provide valid results. I've never seen any others that perform similar calculations to my Intestacy Calculators.

Now that these are complete, I'm also spending more time responding to user emails by writing 'articles' that I post at the site and which people seem to be interested in reading.

Thank you again for your time and objectivity, which are greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.10.205 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rice's Theorem

Thanks for fixing the red. Very nice. I'm a newbie, I'm learning...
BBar (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Stub

Thanks again for the time explaining and helping educate me with the new information. I'm looking into Stubs now. Lots of good stuff.
BBar (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Commons

See your commons talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Truman pic

I found the full page of the HST picture, [1], but it's status is "undetermined", so I'm not sure we can upload it at commons. I'll ask. I'm going to go ahead and delete the X picture. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Golden emergency

I'm trying to create a category to list all the works that were designed with golden proportions or at least been studied because of it's coinciding properties in diverse publications (say, like Stone Henge or the Arc of Noah)... but I can't figure out the right name for such category. I'll also bee needing at least some peer review o the experts. --20-dude (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Goatse

I've just tagged your page, User:Dominus/Goatse for deletion. It's obscene and inapropriate for wikipedia, there is no need to have that for a userpage and many will find that extremely offensive (such as me). AndreNatas (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cayley's theorem

I replied to your WP:RDM post. For what sort of groups are you trying to find m? JackSchmidt (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

George Mark Bergman photos

I was very glad to hear you had gotten a GFDL release from Bergman. It's a great favor of him to release his photos under a free license, and great legwork on your part to contact him to arrange it. You should know that a lot of people appreciate it.

I'm writing to ask you to send a copy of his permissions letter to be stored by Wikipedia, if you haven't done so already. We like to keep records of those things, since we can never tell when an individual editor will have to leave or will lose the letter accidentally. You can just send (a scan of) the release to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, and they will take care of it. Or if you want to send it to me, or just upload a scan as an image, I will take care of it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I emailed it yesterday. My question at WP:M was about how to communicate to the project members that these photographs were available for use. -- Dominus (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if we have a good system for that. One thing we can do is add a note to the appropriate category page on commons, explaining which photographs from the MFO collection can be used here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright: George M. Bergman, Berkeley

Hi, could you provide a link to George M. Bergman's GFDL release, coulden't find it on the http://owpdb.mfo.de/ page. Tried his homepage as well as the departemental page with no luck. /Lokal_Profil 21:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It was sent to me in email. I forwarded a copy to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. I don't know what happens to permissions after that. -- Dominus 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the process is somewhat opaque. The email will sit in a "queue" until one of the OTRS clerks reads it and marks it as acceptable. What I will want to do is to get the "ticket number" from them and make a note of it on the images in question, so that if anyone in the future questions the copyright it will be easy to resolve. You have already done the actual work of getting the release; the rest is just bureaucracy. Your work getting the release is very much appreciated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A word of thanks

Dear Dominus,

I just wanted to thank you for recently having me blocked. It's not so much the blocking I'm thankful for, but the fact that you recognized that the majority of my edits have been constructive. There is one thing I'd like to point out though. When I blank my own user page it is not done with intent to obscure warnings I've been issued. If a warning or any other message on my user page is outdated or not relevant to an ongoing issue, then I clear that comment.

Nevertheless, cheers, and keep up the good work.

P.S. - Is there a reason this post keeps showing up in the Contents as 71.1 instead of 72?

P.P.S. - That would do it. Thanks. Swamilive (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. - I sincerely want to thank you for reverting my previous vandalism on DVD-RAM. I have resolved to only make constructive edits to Wikipedia from now on. I encourage you to continue your tremendous work preventing vandalism. Your steadfastness has been encouraging. Swamilive (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.P.S. - I noticed that you're not an admin. Yet, you're rather prompt at fixing bad edits. Just curious why you don't become an admin. Personal choice? Swamilive (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vov Abraxas vs. VOV

Hi Dom,

I see that you removed an entry I made on the Internet slang article, assuming that it was related to earlier instances of "Vov Abraxas". That edit is completely separate, however. VOV (capitalized) is a fairly well-known bit of net-slang. It stands for "Very Odd Verbiage" and is in common use among Canadians, Britons, and Australians. Evidently, it's not in very common use in the US, but its regionality should not make it a candidate for deletion. Please recognize that while you yourself may not be familiar with a term, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of individuals in other parts of the world who use it on a daily basis.

I will put my edit back in, but I will clarify that its use is primarily restricted to Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Please apply a bit more discretion when reverting.

Swamilive (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Google search finds no mentions of it, so please provide a citation this time. -- Dominus (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Switching Game

Hi Dominus,

You reverted my edit to Strategy-stealing argument, saying that the Shannon switching game is a symmetric game, although the symmetry isn't obvious at first. Would you mind explaining why this is? I know the two players have essentially the same moves, but their objectives are different, so I don't understand how it can be considered a symmetric game - especially since it's quite possible to design graphs that are a trivial win for Cut or a trivial win for Short. Actually, a proof of symmetricity would make a good addition to the Shannon Switching Game page, if you have the time. I'll leave your edit in, and try to find this information out on other sites in the mean time. 212.44.19.62 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think an illustration will make it clear. I will try to post one, or a reference to one, this week. -- Dominus (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your help

Hi Dom,

I posted the following paragraph a few days ago to you, but got no response. Maybe you didn't see it?

I'm just curious if there's any way for me to select a category of articles en masse to add to my watchlist. Mainly, as I've been editing the PiHKAL drugs, I've been selectively "watching" those pages, but I've forgotten to do so with all of them. Since there is a PiHKAL table (I guess you'd call it that) with all of the drugs listed in it, can I somehow get them to all be watched without having to go into each article individually? Any help would be appreciated.

Swamilive (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dom. Just following up yesterday's request. Are you aware of any way to do what I've mentioned above? Swamilive (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dom. Just warming up some fish sticks in the oven right now, which I'll be sprinkling some crushed black pepper and chili powder on shortly. But, I was curious if you got a chance to see any of my recent comments on your talk page. I am posing a legitimate question to you because I feel I could benefit from your help. Please let me know. Swamilive (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming edits not to be mistaken for vandalism

Hi Dom,

How are you this morning? I'm just writing to let you know that in the next few days I will likely be making similar edits to a number of related pages. I am aware that you are watching what I do here on Wikipedia, so before I begin this rather tedious, but very necessary series of edits, I wanted to make you aware that they are well-intentioned. Basically, I'm going to be editing instances of miscapitalization of the title of a book. The book is called PiHKAL (Phenethylamines i Have Known And Loved). It is a book written by Alexander and Ann Shulgin about a group of psychoactive drugs called phenethylamines. The lowercase i is intentional and should not be reverted to uppercase. Likewise, the uppercase A is also intentional, and should not be reverted to lowercase.

I probably won't get around to starting this until Sunday night as I've got a weekend planned of picnicking and being out in nature with my girlfriend. The snow has finally melted and we're getting some warmer weather, so it's time for some outdoorsiness. Should be fun.

Anyway, just giving you the heads-up so that you don't assume I'm vandalizing all these pages with the same bit of text.

Take care,

Swamilive (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dom,

I'm just curious if there's any way for me to select a category of articles en masse to add to my watchlist. Mainly, as I've been editing the PiHKAL drugs, I've been selectively "watching" those pages, but I've forgotten to do so with all of them. Since there is a PiHKAL table (I guess you'd call it that) with all of the drugs listed in it, can I somehow get them to all be watched without having to go into each article individually? Any help would be appreciated.

Swamilive (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dom. Wow! What a time-consuming effort! I finally finished making the necessary changes to the many psychedelic phenethylamines listed in PiHKAL (Phenethylamines i Have Known And Loved). I was surprised to find a few blatant typos and other anomalies in the articles. I have, of course, corrected all errors found. I should inform you that Alexander Shulgin has also written a book about tryptamines called TiHKAL (Tryptamines i Have Known And Loved). I will be making the necessary adjustments to the articles under that book as well. On a more personal level, you should SEE the weather we're getting here :) I purchased a few house plants yesterday, including a very odd cactus. Also, I've now (quite proudly) got a glass centrepiece of an amanita muscaria. Anyway, enjoy your day, and write me back if you can find the time. Swamilive (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bruce revert

Hi Dom. How are things? I'm just curious why you reverted my recent edit to the Bruce article where I added the part about domestic pets in Northwestern Ontario commonly being named Bruce. Please let me know. Swamilive (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dom. How's it going? I've recetly made one or two changes to Graham. They are to list segments on a popular podcast. Now, originally, when I made the first edit, there was an article about the podcast's co-creator David Firth. But, as you'll see by the red link, the article has since been nominated for deletion, and deleted. As failing to link my edits to Graham to anything at all within Wikipedia would constitute unsourced material, I'm at a loss on what to do. I would gladly link externally to David Firth's website where the podcast is available, but that would go against WP:NOT's clause that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. What do you propose I do? Should I maintain the red link to the extinct David Firth page, or should I remove the link and leave the edits unsourced? Swamilive (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

YAPC2002 question

Hi Dom. I just finished watching the YAPC conference from 2002 and I really liked your bit at the end. However, I'm curious if you had any dental work done shortly before that part was filmed. You look a bit puffy in that video, compared to your userpic here on Wikipedia. Swamilive (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Drake and Josh (videogame)

Although you can remove the PROD for any reason I was intrigued by the one you cited - that NN was not appropriate for a PROD. Can you cite the policy for my interest?

(FYI - I had returned to the article to remove the PROD and take it to AfD because I don't think it is necessarily NN as the PROD suggested.)

Thanks! Ros0709 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I screwed up. I confused PROD and SPEEDY. Sorry! -- Dominus (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your note about WP:OWB! Appreciate it! I'm always a little surprised, but hugely pleased, when someone finds that page; it was fun to write. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing PRODs

Hi,

I see that you have not only removed my PROD on Portable Nintendo System (2009) but also another one because "WP:CRYSTAL is not a CSD" and "nn is not a legitimate reason for PROD". However, CSD has nothing to do with PROD. An article does not have to meet the criteria for speedy deletion to be prodded. On the contrary, a PROD is placed where there is no speedy reason but the article pretty obviously has to go anyway. There are no specific reasons a PROD is limited to. The only prerequisite is that the given reason cannot seriously be contested.

In the article I nominated it was crystal clear that it won't stand a chance in an AfD discussion. Now I will have to take it there anyway.

Regards,

Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I screwed up; I was suffering from temporary insanity. I apologize for the extra trouble. I was planning to suggest that we just restore the PROD notices, but I see that it is too late now. Sorry! -- Dominus (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It looks like it is going to be snowballed soon. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

transfer principle

The discussion of the transfer principle at hyperreal numbers contains a serious conceptual error in my opinion. Katzmik (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked vs banned

I have Subliminal message on my watchlist so I saw this edit which has the edit summary of "(Undid revision 236583690 by Carbuncle delicious (talk) (Banned user))". They're not banned, just blocked, and some good-faith-engorged admin might be even unwise enough to unblock them if they changed their username. That's a long way from banned, unless you know something I don't. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I realized shortly afterward that I had used the wrong word. If you check my edit history, you'll see that I said "blocked" in my next edit. -- Dominus (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Just caught the WP:AN thread. Am I right in thinking that Swamilive is just blocked, though? There hasn't been an official banning yet, has there? In the grand scheme of things he's barely an annoyance, and banning won't do much to stop his use of sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that is the case. As I said, my use of "banned" was wrong. -- Dominus (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Just checking. The workings of community bans are beyond the scope of my WP knowledge (and I hope to keep it that way). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To do list

"Counting argument - example: existence of noncomputable functions" Nice! I'm looking forward to reading a few lines on the existence of noncomputable functions. Randomblue (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

your question

Hi, Concerning your question at the deletion page of non-Newtonian calculus, I expect what Arthur meant by saying that it is not mathematics is that there is no mathematical content in this so-called theory, as I described in my comment following his. Here again, I think the closure of the discussion was premature, coming as it did within seconds of a substantive edit. Perhaps a firm policy should be instituted that only administrators should close a discussion. Katzmik (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up!

In case you aren't watching your own bio, see [2]. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Dominus (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

this edit

[3] anything in particular about this guy that you are interested in? Darkspots (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I guess the answer is "no". Why? -- Dominus (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a very specific question. Sorry. Most of your edits seem to be Swamilive-related. Obviously he's blocked indefinitely. Has there been a ban discussion? Darkspots (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I fix things when I find things to fix. I don't know of any ban discussion, but I don't think it's very important either way. -- Dominus (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Me too. The only importance that I see is in terms of 3RR on these articles. It's not obvious vandalism. I'm happy to help keep these cleaned up, but I don't fancy getting blocked for edit warring. I asked an admin about this specific issue and didn't get a clear response. You're right, it ain't no big deal. Darkspots (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I understand now what you're asking. Yes, that user is a serial vandal, and has been repeatedly blocked. Just fix his edits and move on. -- Dominus (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Judge, jury and executioner

Please restore Fishtown Effect and properly nominate it for deletion. Philly jawn (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:PM1+1=2lemma.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PM1+1=2lemma.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JaGatalk 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Kissing-2d.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kissing-2d.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

Please see; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishtown Effect Steve Dufour (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

George Bergman, Berkeley pictures

Hello, could you have a look at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Julia Robinson 1975.jpg, please ? The OTRS ticket seems to be lost. Can you help us find it again ? Teofilo talk 20:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bishop–Keisler controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bishop–Keisler controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)