User talk:Dominus/Archive (2004)

Mediawiki

You say in a MediaWiki page, referring to the bug that categories can't redirect, that the main category should be Category:Sport, instead of Category:Sports. Why? The prevailing opinion seems to be to use plurals, and "Sports" is certainly the preferred term in America, though I don't know about the rest of the english speaking world. --Golbez 05:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it matters which one is the main page and which the redirect, as long as one is the main page and one is the redirect. I only chose "Sport" as the main page because in the main article namespace, Sports is a redirect to Sport. -- Dominus 14:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fibonacci number

Hi Mark - from Talk:Fibonacci number:

"I will add back discussion of the appearance of Fibonacci numbers in sunflowers, pine cones, pineapples, daisies, and so forth. I have something about that written up already that I think could be adapted for inclusion in this article without much trouble. -- Dominus 14:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)"

Can I encourage you to add it? - it is something I would like to see added, but don't have the confidence to do it well myself. I've been putting in links to Fibonacci number at e.g. conifer cones and elsewhere on one or two pages dealing with conifers. Thanks! - MPF 23:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Fibonacci number/Phyllotaxis. -- Dominus 02:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. - MPF 13:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I was wondering where I saw that octupus before (from Wikipedia:Facebook), and realized you're that Dominus! You and your site rocks :) Dysprosia 08:50, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I am glad you like my web site. And Placido is very flattered to learn that he is so easo;y recognized. -- Dominus 15:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Byzantine Generals

From your to do list: a nice introduction to the Byzantine generals problem and its related problems in complexity is something I would very much like to see. ---- Charles Stewart 19:50, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reattribution of edits

Regarding your message at User talk:216.158.52.121 - you're probably looking for Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. Disclaimer: I put a request there a few months ago and it's not done yet! Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AAPA

Hi, you created a redirect from AAPA -> American Association of Port Authorities, but there's no article there. Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed AAPA on WP:RfD. You need to create something (even a stub will do), or the redirect will go away. Thanks! Noel (talk) 01:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. (I try and use some lightness in applying policy, as opposed to being Procrustean about it...) Noel (talk) 15:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hi mjd!

nice to see you here :) BACbKA 17:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) (just another lurker on the clpmod)

Abramowitz and Stegun

I moved the article back to Abramowitz and Stegun because this is overwhelmingly the name by which it is cited in the literature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:02, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:ExplorerCDT

I've opened an RfC on this user for his personal attacks: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2. Since you're on his "nutjob" list, I thought you might be interested. --Carnildo 23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't particularly care if he calls me a nutjob; I think that reveals more about him than it does about me. I don't think that it's worth raising a stink about those remarks, and since I posted a long diatribe on his Talk page in which I explained why he was a coward and a liar, it would be hypocritical for me to object similarly.

I do think the matter of his lies about the Cayley Operational Matrix and Abramowitz and Stegun are a much more serious matter. But although it's quite plain that he was deliberately lying in an attempt to deceive the VFD participants, I don't imagine it could be proved with sufficient certitude to be worth arbitration.

In short, I think he is a pathetic loser, and people like that are not worth the amount of time and effort that would be required to deal with them as they deserve. I'm sure that he is punished enough just by having to be himself. -- Dominus 03:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have also recently had the displeasure of talking to this user. He refused to include a fact that I had discovered about colonial colleges - specifically that there had been a grand plan to unite all these colleges under the control of an institution that would have been known as The American University. At first he claimed that it was unverifiable. Once another user and myself had directed him to a primary source, he started claiming that it was irrelevant. It seems that he has too much time on his hands. I too have given up. He grew too annoying to deal with. Mat334 20:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

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) 13:03, 9 December 2004 (UTC)