User talk:Ramsey2006

Welcome

Welcome, Ramsey2006!

It was a joy to read your contribution to the Ramsey theory article, and especially to view your nice illustration. You seem fairly advanced for a beginner; am I right in surmising that you've had some prior wikipedia and mathematics experience?

I've got an idea of contributing a little myself to the article, when I get around to it. I think that as this is supposed to be an encyclopædian article, there should be some mentioning of the context of the original theorems (Theorems A and B in his "On a problem of formal logic"), and also a mentioning of the fact that the infinite and hypergraph variants are in fact original, not later extensions. Do you have any comments? JoergenB 23:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you never did any wiki work before, your start was an even better achievement. You must have the habit of reading and understanding instructions - so, again, that indicates a practiced mathematician :-)

I discovered wikipedia just a couple of months ago, which is another reason I didn't put a 'Welcome' template on your talk page; but since you are new, perhaps I should look it up. It does contain some links and advices; but perhaps you've already found it elsewhere.

I've access to a good mathematical library (at the University of Stockholm), which I found sometimes is a great advantage on the wiki, too. Ramsey's article is in Proc. London Math. Soc. 30 (1930), pp. 264-286. (Actually, I never read it before, either.) Of course he doesn't use the term hypergraph; he talks about colouring all those sub-classes of [the given class] which have exactly r members.

So, you have the full right to remain anonymous and do not need to answer; but if I understand your comment about your own work correctly, I'd guess your surname starts with F, K, or R... JoergenB 12:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference!

I'll send a letter outside the wiki system for OR related stuff. One of the things I decided I have to learn about is Graham numbers; the thing is contradictory as it stands; and there is some confusion about what Graham (and Rotschild) really did or didn't do. I wrote a little 'correction' which unhappily was not quite correct, either, so I've started tryinng to assimilate the Graham-Rotschild theorem. I've already found out that the article covers both the (Euclidean space) cube example and the (GF(2) space) secretary one, although they are different and may lead to different estimates. Moreover, even if the interest among wikipedians and readers center among the enormous numbers, I think that the Graham-Rotschild theorem itself should be stressed more, and in particular the fact that both Ramsey's (finite) theorem and van der Waerden's theorem are special cases. JoergenB 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

There are some good tips at Wikipedia:Talk pages. Splitting comments makes it hard to follow who is saying what. -Will Beback · † · 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning for Elvira Arellano

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Elvira Arellano. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

adding (talk) to an edit summary

don't do this unless you've actually added talk to the discussion page concerning your edit. Its dishonest otherwise.-Psychohistorian 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I clicked on undo to undo your edit which removed my original sentence. The edit summary must have been generated automatically by the software. I didn't write it. You should refrain from insults and from accusing fellow editors of dishonesty. --Ramsey2006

Salt Cathedral

the Salt Cathedral in Zipaquira?.--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This one, in fact Salt Cathedral. It would be nice if u upload the pics to Commons, in order to use them at eswiki--ometzit<col> 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)--ometzit<col> 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Elvira Arellano. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I'm unable to apply the exemption for unsourced critical material about living people in this case because you did not claim it, and the material was sourced. In a revert war administrators have to treat each side fairly. Sam Blacketer 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

checking timestamp--Ramsey2006 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: This also applies to Illegal immigration. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You back yet?

Just checking. --evrik ^(talk) 16:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Discussion page for Elvria Arellano

Ramsey2006, quit lying in your revert messages. I clearly stated my reason for the change. It was not vandalism... and you know it. You even made a new page for Saul to accomodate the Mexican American angle to this story. Furthermore, the article itself does not include the category Mexican-American so why, pray tell, should the Discussion page? Actually, what you have done is more akin to vandalism: "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you lie again in your revert messages and/or add information back that you KNOW to be false i.e. Mexican-American, I will seek to have you blocked. Consider this your one and only warning. Lordpathogen 20:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: Existing disputes in Elvira Arellano article submitted for mediation

• User:Evrik and User:Ramsey2006, I have made a Request for Mediation here. --LordPathogen 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Elvira Arellano, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --LordPathogen 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Elvira Arellano. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Request for Arbitration - Elvira Arellano

You are hereby advised that a formal request for Arbitration has been initiated by me regarding the article on Elvira Arellano. LordPathogen 17:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:129.33.49.251, you will be blocked from editing. LordPathogen 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (please stop) Please do not place incorrect information on this user page again. The SP case was already adjudicated and it was found this IP was not a sock-puppet. If you persist in placing it there in spite of that ruling, I will be forced to report you for vandalism. LordPathogen 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• At the same time he warns you for being a vandal for adding the tag back in here, he incorrectly removes a tag here. Gotta love his chutzpah. ----evrik ^(talk) 16:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anchor Baby use

Hi. On your question about 'mother' - I actually agree. I am opposed to the term. My concern is to keep Wikipedia NPOV and simply to state the facts with reliable sources. I don't see actual consensus in the media for calling the term 'pejorative' or qualifying the term as such when it is used as other pejoratives are often qualified for example the N word. That said, I do welcome your contribution - if consensus moves away from my compromise thats okay - but I feel the best for Wikipedia is to remain neutral until national consensus is reached and to indicate within the article that the term is considered 'pejorative' (with reliable sources indicating this or quoted as such) as well as the others using it without pejorative meaning (with reliable sources indicating such) - which allows the reader of the article to know of the situation and to make up their own minds. If you can think of a way to do this which might provide for both views let us or me know. Best wishes, --Northmeister 14:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC) -PS. the order has been restored to the comments section in precise order of entry but with different indentations so your answer is clarified to be to Richwales not myself. Sorry about the screw-up with indentation. My comments to yours are indented to allow for flow of commentary. --Northmeister 14:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)