User talk:Fioravante Patrone en

Hello, Fioravante Patrone en, and

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! Laleena^{Talk Contributions} 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. I'll check you up on the history. If you need any help getting around or need suggestions for wikiprojects to join, just ask me. Laleena^{Talk Contributions} 17:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why you made this comment above. Did you read my contributions? Or, as soon as someone says that "Jewish" should not stay there, you start writing nonsense in his talk page? --Fioravante Patrone en 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a comment at User talk:Cretog8#Barzilai that may be of interest to you. —SlamDiego_←T 21:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looked on the face of it like a good addition to me. I recall when I first started getting into game theory one of the books was on conflict resolution (wish I could remember what it was now). It's just a gut feeling, should probably be supported by documentation, but that looked good. In any case, it certainly seems like it's more important than engineering? Quite possibly more than computer science.

O well, I'm mentioning it here rather than the talk page because I have nothing to back this up other than my gut. We'll see if anything more solid turns up. Cretog8 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feelings? The main one is that the field left free in the "Subject/headline" when you revert is too small ;-)

So that my few words there are not quite correct. Trying to be more explicit, I would say that I felt it as essentially "mis-placed". The other items are "disciplines", while this is a "topic". Other argument is that it is somehow a topic with some correlation with game theory, so that could be seen also at some extent as a "rival" theory which deals with similar issues, but with different focus (so, again, misplaced). Last point is that I had a (really gut) feeling of advertising in parts of the article on "conflict resolution" (too many external links, included the section "Additional resources").

Anyway, I will survive to a re-revert, for sure (Schelling also would, I guess). --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct format is

• title (year)

Ciao and good work --Attilios (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is no reason to enter one. A contribution was made and is up for editing. The section is necessary, if, like the other fellow you dislike the style, you may edit it, but just to remove it (when it is clearly necessary) is daft. Please review the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muinchille1 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Sorry! —SlamDiego_←T 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current