User talk:Grubber

I saw you added some info on the Skat page about a change of Grand from 24 to 20... I can't find that in the rules on [1], but it is listed from 2002. Where did you hear of this change? - grubber 06:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me, I only changed the categorization. Some at 209.148.105.75 made the change you are refering to.

Dddstone

My mistake. I'm going to revert the edit, since I can't verify it with the official skat rules. - grubber 17:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange... I can swear I read that the official rules changed from 24 to 20 some time ago (around 1999 or so) and I think I verified it at that time. However, it seems that the rules either were reverted or that it was some kind of hoax. Sorry about that. I will keep on looking for referenced to the change, however. --Yoghurt 15:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the original notices, as there were about 7 of them and it was cluttering my talk page.

Thanks for uploading

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.

Thanks for the notice. As I wrote in all the image comments, these images were taken from the German-language Wikipedia, and I have no information on their copyrights. - grubber 17:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Grubber, if you have uploaded some untagged images, please help wikipedia to tag properly them. Regards,

T/C) 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. I will go through the ones I added and see what I can find. - grubber 21:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you reverted my edit on Adler where I moved the dab template from the bottom to the top. Thank you; you were certainly right to do so. I made the move without previously checking the style guidelines, my reasoning being that a) it looked better and b) a memory of other pages having it at the top. I'll not make that error again.

Thanks,

Hi Grubber, I don't know how much editing you do on mathematics pages, but there's a style guide that strongly recommends against using TeX inline, the way you've done for Galois group. I know that this really sucks, and I wish it were otherwise (and in fact I feel so strongly about this that I'm working on software which might, one day, make it otherwise), but unfortunately for now it's probably better to go back to the crappy "wikified math" that was there before. (And by the way, it's always good to use ${\displaystyle \operatorname {Gal} (F/E)}$ instead of ${\displaystyle Gal(F/E)}$.) Dmharvey 20:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, man. I had not read that style guideline nor was I aware of "operatorname"... both great to know. How can we make the page better? Even though it does not conform to that particular style, I think it is much more readable than it was before. Is there a way we can keep the readibility (and parallelism) but follow the style better? - grubber 20:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PNG version works better for the extensions involving radicals, but for the others, everything is out of alignment for me (and probably for many other readers too) and it looks kind of crazy. So one possibility is to go back to wikified formatting for the bulk of them, and then use PNG for the ones involving ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}}$ and ${\displaystyle {\sqrt[{3}]{2}}}$, but then put those equations on a separate line so that there aren't issues of lining up with the surrounding text. Some rewording will be necessary too, because those sentences currently begin with equations. Another thing I often do is use ${\displaystyle \mathbf {R} }$ instead of ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} }$ (etc), because then one can do R in the running text and it isn't all too confusing. See how it works for you, I'll swing by again later :-) (By the way, I'm particularly happy with the order-preserving comment you made, I had been meaning to look that up for a while.) Dmharvey 21:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that all was a homework problem I had to do, proving R/Q had only one Q-automorphism. I'll work on trying to get it fixed up a bit... maybe a table, to help keep it all parallel.. Or something... Thanks for the feedback! - grubber 06:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand why there are so few Wikipedians who are graduate engineers. Once I get a grasp on that, perhaps I may be able to formulate some ideas on how to attract more experienced engineers to become Wikipedians. It would be very helpful if you would respond to these a few questions:

• Are you a university graduate engineer?
• Please indicate in which of these engineering disciplines you obtained your degree:
  1. Aeronautical or aerospace engineering
  2. Bioengineer or biological engineering
  3. Chemical engineering
  4. Civil engineering
  5. Electrical engineering
  6. Environmental engineering
  7. Mechanical engineering
  8. Petroleum engineering
  9. Other
• In what year did you obtain your degree?
• What attracted you to participate in Wikipedia?

If you would rather not answer these questions on your Talk page, then you may respond on my User talk:mbeychok page. Or you may respond to me via Wikipedia's email which I have enabled on my User:mbeychok page.

If you would rather not respond at all, that's fine also. Regards, - mbeychok 04:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through Fillgraderstiege- i saw it needed proofreading. Seeing as you translated it in the first place, I'll ask you- do you think that it's ready to label as being done? Cheers. The Missing Piece 15:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would consider it done. I just like to have at least one other pair of eyes on it, especially since the one doing the translator is influenced by the German version. Thanks for lookin it over. - grubber 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to thank you for your kind help in the process of moving and deleting Order (algebra). Someone from the refrence desk was attempting to delete the old article (or replace it with a redirect, I'm not sure) but ultimately, Your {{prod}} ended up on Degree of a polynomial. I don't think this is what you intended, so I removed it. If I am incorrect and you think that that page should also be deleted, feel free to replace it. Order (algebra) has already been replaced. I hope I didnt cause more confusion than necessary. Thanks again, 48v 00:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! I had both pages open, and (naturally) they looked alike and I mistakenly added the PROD to the wrong page. Thanks for correcting my mistake! - grubber 06:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks again for the help with that process. 48v 07:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was claimed to revert vandalism of the three previous edits. Two of the changes (by Accrisoft (talk · contribs)) were obviously not vandalism, and in reverting you undid these legitimate edits. Please be more careful with your reversions as well as accusations of vandalism in the future. Isopropyl 16:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment; I stand by the edit in its entirety, although I agree the reason I gave was imprecise and I apologize for that. The anon edit had deleted an entire section of CMS, of which Accrisoft restored only one entry. I reverted all three edits in order to restore the section as it was (Accrisoft's edit added nothing new). - grubber 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've posted a note in the talk page of A Beautiful Mind defending my inclusion of the Barbara Bush quote. I'd appreciate your input. Charles (Kznf) 13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I'll continue this chat over there :) - grubber 17:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop fixing the double-redirect of vibration. The error is that of the person who has changed the Vibration page to redirect to Oscillation. While oscillations are one definition of vibration, there are clearly other meanings and we should fix the vibration page, not everything that links there.

Atlant 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already completed fixing all 200 redirects. I looked at the previous version of Vibration, and the page had only one valid link. It was not (and still is not) a disambiguation page -- there is no confusion. I agree the two are somewhat different, but there are no other pages in Wikipedia to deal with the subtlety of vibration vs oscillation. Currently, oscillation seems to be the best link for the word "vibration". - grubber 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration is now fixed. And yes, before the page was replaced with the hard redirect, it was marked as a disambiguation page, although it really wasn't structured as one.

Atlant 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new page looks great! Good job. - grubber 16:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Atlant 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reinserting the comment about left and right cosets of a normal subgroup being equal at this point in the article. Of course it is true. But it is off topic and confusing when placed in the position where you keep reinserting it. This paragraph is about cosets in general and we've just finished noting that when the underlying subgroup is unspecified it isn't meaningful to talk about left and right. You then immediately want to talk about left and right cosets of a specified subgroup and when they coincide. Please talk about this somewhere else. This comment just plain doesn't belong right here and confuses the point that has just been made. It would be somewhat better in the preceeding paragraph which at least is talking about left and right cosets of a specified subgroup. However note that there is an entire section (possibly overkill IMO) on precisely the point you are trying to make later on in the article. Your edit means the article now mentions this point twice in two different places - bad style.

I haven't got time to fix it up right now. It does need fixing. The article currently talks about cosets and normal subgroups twice, once in a section specifically on that topic, and once in the introductory paragraph defining cosets in general where you keep reinserting it and where I argue it is off topic. Since you insist on this insertion, would you please follow through and clean up the mess it has made of the structure of the article. We really don't need to mention this fact more than once in the article, and wherever we do choose to mention it, it should fit naturally into the discussion that surrounds it.

--Hawthorn 22:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns, but I made the edit because I felt the paragraph was a bit misleading. It was a brief paragraph that ended with the statement that "the distinction between left and right is not meaningful for cosets in general." A person who fails to read about normality could leave the page thinking left and right are the same thing. For any given subgroup, the distinction between left and right is important.

I was just about to offer to help edit it, but noticed you just changed it. I think the new version you just posted eliminates the issue I just metioned and still makes the point you want to make. Frankly, I think mentioning normality in the intro is useful, since it's a key part of cosets... but it's a minor point and I'll let it be. Take care. - grubber 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I didnt see that you kept normality in the intro. My mistake. Looks good. Thanks for the clean-up. I think this version reads better than any of the other versions we had in the history. Great job. - grubber 01:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment in my Talk page. The idea is certainly worth considering, and could be tried out for some topic, such as group theory. There does seem to be quite a bit of (perfectly understandable) anti-nav aid feeling in the Math WikiProject, and I think the fear is that these things tend to bloat with irrelevancies. Anyway, I'll have a look at the German version. It may be a while before I could get to something like this, though. Thanks again. Michael Kinyon 08:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sort of up for the nav-aids idea, although as Michael says there is some oposition to the idea. If we can find a solution which keeps the naveboxes to a reasonable size, we might be in with some chance. --Salix alba (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe I will start a project to discuss the issue, determine if there is a reasonable solution agreeable to most... and then work to figure out what that would look like. Thanks for the feedback! - grubber 01:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert the change to Q (disambiguation). It maybe be one screen for you, but not for others. The reason you stated has nothing to do with TOCs.100110100 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding your interstes, since i looked @ your talkpage. Since your maintiatn disambigs, coudl u check that the disamgi template at the bottome of those pages, are not double spaced? Amont the fact that nothing should be double spaced, but headded, but that's another story........thanks.100110100 22:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had already reverted it, and tho I prefer it without, if you decide to revert I won't change it back. - grubber 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in joining WikiProject Austria? You can join here. Kingjeff 00:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently revised the AC disambig page and removed what you said in your edit summary were "dictionary definitions". Basically, you removed anything that wasn't wiki-linked.

I've put all of these definitions back. There is a link on the page to AC at wiktionary and none of the definitions on the page are ones that can be found there? Why? Because they aren't dictionary definitions. Furthermore, many of these removed items had wiki pages or at least subsections in wiki pages--no one had ever bothered to look them up and find out and link them. For many of the others which don't have wiki pages, a wiki page on many of them would be appropriate and one way to encourage users to create these articles is to link them red so that users know that they need to be created.

I know that you are a Wikipedian who helps to fix disambiguation pages with links, but I think you went more than a little overboard on the AC page. Also, you left no comment on the talk page whatsoever. A lot of people may not know things like Wikipedia's Disambiguation Policy, and might think that you are changing how they've styled the page to fit your own ideas. It might be helpful to leave a simple comment on the talk page stating that you've adjusted the page to fit with policy X and Y so that all Z type pages look uniform. TStein 23:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I use the edit comments to explain why I do things, although I will make a link to

MOS:DAB

in the future to cite why I make the changes I do. The big question we have to ask on a dab page is: "Is it reasonable to think that the person who searched for AC meant to find the ______ page?" If the answer is no, then the link does not belong. Dab pages are not exhaustive lists of all things that could be abbreviated AC, but rather aids to confusion and ambiguity. For example, you restored "Assistant Commander".. If a person wanted to see the page on assistant commanders, I really don't believe they would have typed "AC".

That being said, there's a lot of gray area in dab pages. Take James for example; do all those Jameses really belong there? No, of course not. But I don't have the heart to delete them all or even begin to try to decide which ones do belong. Further, is a dab page really the place to translate "james" into other languages? No, but where else should it go?

I would like to ensure that AC not become like MC (disambiguation). MC (disambiguation) is a mess, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I would enjoy discussing this more if you like, as I could sure use help to make these difficult pages better! - grubber 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, heh. There is no assistant commander. There's assistant commissioner which redirects to Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis which is there anyway so silly me. People might not search for AC when looking for "Assistant Commissioner", but they might have been reading the article previously and not remember the name but remember the abbreviation. I do that lots, or remember something related and try and track my way back. I do know what you mean about disambig pages getting to be messes, but I think the solution is great organization. Personally, I'm loathe to get rid of something because you have no idea what someone is going to come looking for. I use disambig pages all the time when I find abbreviations that dictionaries and the general web are really not helping me sort out, and they're insanely helpful, because the most random things are abbreviated so bizarrely. They'll be a four word phrase and it'll have a two letter abbreviate and the two letters won't be from any of the words in the phrase but from somewhere else. I can see people using Wiki disambig pages for everything, downloading them to palm pilots and taking them everywhere. They just need fabulous organization. And really neurotic people to get that done. I'll take a crack and the MC page later. TStein 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But DAB pages

are not lists and are not search indices of every possible choice. They are aids to navigation. Remember the difference between the "GO" and "SEARCH" buttons in the search box at the left. If the user types "AC" and hits "GO" and means to go to page ______, then it's a valid dab entry. But, leave it to Google and Wikipedia Search to work out the rest. - grubber 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. But I ONLY type in AC if I'm trying to find something I can't remember because I know that AC is a DAB page. I never type abbreviations even if it's what I know something as because it's most likely a DAB page. What I'm saying is that is I looked up something A____ C_____ and it was referred to so often in the article that when I was going to look it up again, I remembered it as AC, I'm going to have to go type in AC as a search term instead of the full article name. If I remember the full name, I'll do it, as in many cases most people will. There are many things on that list and many DAB lists where the full term is what's most often used. It's not like US or other abbreviations are closer to being acronyms. Or actual acronyms (GOP comes to mind). DAB pages need to be a list to some extent, because most of the words and phrases on them are only shortened in certain contexts, and you don't know what context the user is coming from. What we really could probably do without are some of the game characters that are called AC, but quite frankely, AC is more likely to get hits for them then other stuff and wikipedia will probably have articles for them in the next six months, so I wouldn't bother trying to kill them. They probably get more lives and better guns than we do anyway. And you know that they respawn faster. TStein 07:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, dab pages are not exhaustive lists. We should not create something just because one person may make that association. For example, Mariah Carey is not on MC (disambiguation). There was a dispute about this (and some anon editors continue to add her back there), but most of the editors there agreed that she is not called "MC" or known as "MC" (as K-FED names go) so she does not belong on the MC page. This is the philosophy behind dab pages. - grubber 15:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oden 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies for Image:Lena5.jpg and Image:Lena30.jpg. --Oden 21:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lena" issue has come up a few times now and should probably be resolved, and it will probably require a discussion. - grubber 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge

I like your edition in Pledge. Nasz 09:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects

John (disambiguation) is not a double-redirect, despite what your edit summaries say. It is a redirect to the disambiguation page John. This type of redirect is created and used intentionally, and should not be bypassed, as explained at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. Please do not continue to change these links. --Russ (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you the note; I have encountered exactly the problem this rule is meant to correct, and I appreciate you pointing this out. - grubber 02:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Plot edits

I'm really not sure either. But the version before our edits (the one

MoS:DAB. But since apparently someone thought the list should appear on that page, I chose my version as a compromise :-) One more argument in favor of my version: I don't think there will be more links added to conspiracy that would be relevant to the plot page. You might still be right, though, and I wouldn't have reverted your changes unless 84.174.104.97 had reverted both yours and mine. — TowerDragon 23:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough. It's a toss-up in my mind, so I'll concede the point to you. I have just edited it so that it links to Conspiracy (disambiguation). Are you satisfied with the page as it is now? - grubber 19:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that’s good. — TowerDragon 06:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template: CATV_USA

I've replied to your comments here if you'd like to continue the discussion. --Bill Clark 16:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Marburg notability

I'm concerned that

notable person. What are your thoughts? - grubber 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

He is notable enough to named a disease. That is the reason I did research about him and I didn't found too much, but he is refered often in medical specialized publications. Just write Marburg in www.pubmed.com and several articles will appear. Try marburg sclerosis to eliminate false positives and you still will have several. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Juansempere (talk • contribs

) 13:08, 2007 February 7.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this. I've reformatted the article so that it matches the wiki-style a bit better. Check it out and let me know if you have any questions. - grubber 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question.....

Although the AfD on Sean Quinn has now closed, in case you're still interested in knowing, the youth team of a football club is a team run directly by the actual club itself (not merely affiliated) exclusively for players who are too young to play for the actual pro team (normally 16/17/18 year olds who will have signed with the club straight out of high school) but which the club hopes to build up to the point where they will one day make the pro team. The players are fully contracted to the club and paid by the club. I don't know enough about US sports to draw a comparison (and I'm especially not sure what a "redshirt freshman" is - sounds like something off Star Trek <g>) but that's a little explanation of youth teams anyway...... ChrisTheDude 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Thankfully this link --

redshirt freshman -- is blue so I dont have to butcher the idea trying to explain it lol. I'm a casual watcher of sprots, and not sure I could've done it 100% accurately! - grubber 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Encouragement

Thank you for the note of encouragement. I am grateful and appreciative. I hope to be able to create value. We shall see? Bluestripe 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

sorry about the protected thing. thanks for taking care of it for me. :)18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.83.75 (talk • contribs)

thanks

For the Edits on J9A10, to make it as per Wikipedia's policies. This page was put up by us on Wikipedia just to notify all the players of this game that it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.232.151 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 2007 February 13

I encourage you to add some new content. I think J9A10 could be a legitimate topic for wikipedia, but it must be done with original non-copyrighted text. Thanks for the comment. - grubber 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your feedback

Have made some edits on the page to make it original based on my research. Look forward to your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.232.151 (talk • contribs) 1:32, 2007 February 13

POTY 2006

Your vote was not considered because you don't have 100 edits in Commons and didn't provide a good "diff" link to your home wiki. Please check the instructions and try again. Alvesgaspar 21:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I am commons:User:Grubber. - grubber 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, it is fixed now. Alvesgaspar 21:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. - grubber 22:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better Badges

Hi. Thanks for your vote on the page I started Better Badges. However, I mistakenly thought that meant the threat of deletion was lifted, but now it's gone. And all my research with it. I certainly learnt my lesson - to back up my work in future. I take it there's no way of recovering it. I certainly think that, as the originator of punk button-badges, and the main publisher of punk zines in the UK, BB is a worthy entry, and will, inevitably, gain an entry at some point. It came to me as I recently assisting a Professor pal at NYU lecture on punk culture, and was surprised there was no entry, despite many of the fanzines being included. It seems that any small record-label, band, of the period is notable, but not a major publisher/enabler of DIY material for the fans. As a pioneer viral marketer it isn't so easily categorizable perhaps. Anyway I'm beginning to get the hang of wiki and even started one myself this week. Wwwhatsup 11:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, and support. I've succeeded (I couldn't find the right spot before - the key was to search on administrators) in filing a request for a deletion review Wwwhatsup 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwell channel

Hi, Grubber!

I've been trying to look at all the articles connected to algebraic coding theory. You just put this article out there a few days ago.

I was trying to learn more about S. I. Gel'fand when I noticed something. In the biographical article about his father, it says that the elder Gel'fand derived the capacity of the Blackwell channel. But your recent article says that Sergiu G. came up with the formula.

You're interested in disambiguation. Here's a disambiguation problem of a different color. Was it Gel'fand the elder or Gel'fand the younger? I'll hunt around a little myself, but you probably have better access to academic resources than I do. Thanks for introducing an interesting idea into Wikipedia! DavidCBryant 11:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proof for the capacity of the Blackwell channel was given in a paper by "S.I.Gel'fand", and that is all the biographical information I can find! I am guessing S=Sergio and that I=Israelovich (or however you spell it). This would match with what I remember about Russian middle names, which are often "son of ___" (-ovich) or "daughter of ___" (i cant remember). I did a Google for "S.I.Gel'fand" but I really can't come up with anything. So, it's more of an educated guess, and it seems to fit since the son was apparently a mathematician. I am new to the Blackwell channel and the Gel'fand paper, so if you have any insight, I'd love to hear it. - grubber 15:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference in the bio article; that was my mistake. - grubber 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never even heard of the Blackwell channel until I read the Wikipedia article. I do know a little about algebraic coding theory (well, I read a book about it 25 years ago), but this concept is a new one for me. I just noticed the name Gelfand, and recognized it as belonging to a Russian mathematician of some renown. So the inconsistency between the two articles caught my eye. Thanks for patching that up. I think both Gelfands are alive, btw. And from the tiny bit of Russian I remember (that was 35 years ago!) I think the daughters are -avich. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 17:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA question

Yes, your assumption would be correct. I have covered it in more detail in response to some opposers. If you have further questions, please make them known. Cheers, – Chacor 02:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your latest question with a diff. – Chacor 04:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you spotted Blnguyen giving the go-ahead on his talk page, but I believe that he has indeed cleared this RFA. WRT the September RFA, I believe that the participation itself of arbcom members in that RFA was more than enough of a signal. If they hadn't cleared it I'm sure they would have said so, instead of taking part in the RFA. Cheers, – Chacor 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"No one opposing" and "committee approving" are not logically the same actions. One is passive and one is active. The ArbCom explicitly restricted your ability to apply for RfA. You would probably be approved, but there needs to be some record that this was actively approved. - grubber 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] – Chacor 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote, – Chacor 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently writing up an RfA for Chacor. Can you check with the other Arbcom members and make absolutely sure that he's authorized to run?

masterka 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, this will be interesting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your remark on the RfA regarding my comment about the prior RfA. I agree that the comments in September may be susceptible to more than one interpretation, but would have preferred if you had used a term other than "misrepresented" to describe the fact that I read the discussion differently from how you did. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Although I believe that your description does not accurately represent what the Sept RFA actually says (and in that sense "the comment misrepresents the situation"), the word "misrepresent" makes it sound like you were being dishonest -- which is definitely not what I intended. I apologize for my misrepresentation of your comment....  :) - grubber 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ... and in retrospect I suppose I oversimplied the situation ... although the Support !vote from Jimbo Wales pretty much moots the original issue anyhow. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a confusing situation, and I can understand how you came to your conclusion. I am just making sure that Chacor didnt short-circuit the hoops he needed to jump through in order to reapply for adminship. - grubber 19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 80 in Wyoming

The exits should not be copied straight from the source, and the list also must be formatted in accordance to

干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I didnt just copy it from the source. I used it as a reference to create the new table. Also, what I put there was formatted like all the other lines in the table, and it should not just be reverted, even if there are formatting errors. - grubber 05:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copy what I posted to his talk page) I have read through the standards, and although I agree that I didn't do it completely correct, I think my I was 95% of the way there and I don't understand why it was reverted. It would take 30 seconds to fix the errors, a few more minutes to insert the omissions -- but it would take you 20-30 minutes to do again from scratch. I saw that you were doing this long list all on your own and wanted to help you out. I did use that webpage as a source, but I was careful not to just copy it over verbatim, as that would be plagiarism. However, the fact that exit post 219 is labeled "XXX" is public domain knowledge and there is no copyright on commonly-known information. - grubber 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics CotW

Hey Grubber, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 21:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will-o'-the-wisp - picture

Hello! I agree, pictures are helpfull. But this picture has nothing to do with will-o'-the-wisp! Look:

• the smoke - it is very unlikely that burning bubbles of methane could produce any smoke. And in the picture the smoke is not only visible, but goes over the water suggesting a long period of burning.
• the shape of flames is improbably to be of burning gases.
• a vessel carrying the wood is visible.
• the lack of waves around the fire which are necessarily associated with emerging bubbles of a gas.
• the lake does not look like a swamp nor having muddy bottom.

Regards, Michał Sobkowski 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this picture when I was looking through the German wikipedia for ein Irrlicht (it appears the picture comes originally from the Finnish article.) Although the picture is defective in the points you mention, I think it's still useful -- until something better is available. The picture gives a visual image for what a Will-o-the-wisp is -- and you'd be surprised how many English speakers have heard the word but could not even begin to define it! - grubber (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of graduate school fellowships

Doc^g 12:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Agreed. It is not maintainable -- and I haven't even attempted to do so. - grubber (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Year page formatting of multiple events

Hello, I'm sending you this message since you were involved in the August 2005 survey on year pages. As I don't know if you've gathered, somebody has been fighting for a change to the house style on how to notate multiple events on the same date. A discussion is currently in progress - your contribution (including whether you still favour the style you voted for or have changed your mind) would be appreciated! -- Smjg (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L'Inconnue de la Seine

Hi, I proofread this article and had only one correction in the section you mentioned on the translation talk page.

Mediengeschichtlich interessant ist die damalige Popularität dieser Abbildungen. Sie hängt mit der Mehrfachreproduktion zusammen: Dass die Abdrücke der Totenmaske fotografiert... ⇔ The popularity of the figure is also of interest to the history of artistic media, relating to its widespread reproduction. The original cast had been photographed...

Assuming you have no new thoughts about the article I'm going to call the translation complete as I try to get rid of some of the backlog.

talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much! - grubber (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research

Grubber,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent bold edits to $1

Would you care to chime in on this discussion? YBG (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Macintosh

Revival

our project page! · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject Macintosh

Role Call

our project page! &middot MonoBot04:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

File:Map_friedrichsbrunn_in_germany.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files 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. Common Good (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the

WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

A historical perspective on moment in physics and mathematics

I have posted a comment in your article/discussion on 'moment'. Please consider my request to elaborate the historical perspective on the issue. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Grubber. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Grubber. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Grubber. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

== Just copy the source code and paste it on the talk page of the user you wish to invite.

This user has been invited WikiProject Prussia please consider checking us out.

==

talk

)