Rp

I see you ain't no newbie to Petri nets (I read your webpage). It would be great to make the article featured (i.e. really good). I am the current editor of the article: I have made 99% of it, if not all. I would really like if you read through it, and made edits, or just notes (though don't be afraid to edit!). Your feedback is much welcome! (ps: www.petriweb.org could feature a link to the article, too, if the article gets better ;) ) Msoos 17:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Of course the Petri nets article is on my watch list; I also made a couple of minor contributions early on. The article can indeed be improved a lot, but since I am only a software developer, not a researcher on Petri nets, I hesitate to step in and make big changes. I will do my best to make smaller contributions, starting on the talk page. Rp 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thx for the replies. I will rewrite the Petri Net article just as you suggested: without place capacities in the definition. In fact, I studied the thing without place capacities in the original definition, but since in the article the definition already had, I was afraid to touch that part. The time has come to do revolutionise the article, it seems :) Msoos 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just thought that you might be interested in this thing that a friend of mine is doing in Budapest's University of Technology and Economics (Hungary's foremost technical university). He and this PhD student are developing this app, that would parse up an XML that describes a process algebra (e.g. petri net or UML), i.e. the description of the algebra, then parses up the actual model (i.e. a program written in petri net or UML) and executes it. It's all done with some "Petri net transformation" technique, or what. It sounds *really* interesting, and the guy ain't no stupid guy - he was the winner of Hungary's maths championship for years on end, and he is an expert programmer (I mean the professor in the uni did not believe his eyes when he saw him). Anyways, if you are interested, I would be happy to provide you with some info on the project (contacts, etc.). About a year ago they had 300'000 lines of code done, so it's serious. Msoos 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well (not sure where to put my reply) this can potentially be very interesting. We are working on Petri net transformations and conversions to and from other formalisms, including process algebras, but work has been done on that by others since at least the late 1970s, so just the idea of doing this isn't new or interesting by itself. Rp 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have a question about the recent changes made to the Article Context Free Grammar (CFG). Since every CFG can be mathematically transformed to the Chomsky Normal Form in which every rule starts with a single variable (non-terminal), why is it necessary to define CFG in such a way that would not allow any terminal to appear on the left side of a rule? Doesn't this severely limit the scope of a CFG? --CBKAtTopsails 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, got confused about Context Free Grammar with Grammar. --CBKAtTopsails 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

While I was doing editing on CFG, my mind was thinking about G (grammar) which allows terminals to appear on the left side. --CBKAtTopsails 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

...but it should have citations; all articles should.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on CCFinder, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because CCFinder is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting CCFinder, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your post in the Talk:Formal_language discussion page on the article. Hermel (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have responded to your note on the Talk:Formal grammar page. The note on analytical grammar. The formal grammar type is known as Reductive Grammar and was used in the 60's. ACM SEGPLAN published article in which the term Reductive Grammar was used. I recently found it in a TREE META paper. I had forgotten about it. But do now remember seeing it SEGPLAN articles. I posted the response. It is significant in describing many meta compilers of that period. I am trying to find more on the meaning of context sensitive language. Most of what's available now does not describe my understanding of its meaning. COBOL from my understanding of the turm (1960s and 70s) was a context sensitive language, as its divisions all had different syntax. A data division picture for example. See my post using COBOL example of reductive grammar. Steamerandy (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated Yasper, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasper and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Domain specific programming language to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you added

At least one of its past champions has a page on Wikipedia.

to Freeciv, are you referring to yourself? MrMacMan ^Talk 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. I was never a very good player, but I've seen a lot of games. Besides, I only have a user page on Wikipedia. Rp (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me state the problems I saw.

• "Mathematicians usually describe the existence of intransitivities in a relation by saying the relation is not a partial order." Is that so? For a relation, having intransitivities is not equivalent to not being a partial order. A relation can fail to be a partial order for unrelated reasons (for not being reflexive or not being transitive) without having a (non-trivial) cycle. So the reader may easily get confused, because the natural interpretation of this text is that the two descriptions – informal and as phrased by mathematicians – are equivalent, which they are not. The only way I see to "clarify" this into something that is also correct while retaining the essence of the text is to replace "the relation is not a partial order" by "the reflexive transitive closure of the relation is not a partial order". I'm afraid, though, that this will effectively serve more as an obfuscation than as a a clarification.
• "Rather, it is equivalent to the relation's transitive closure being antisymmetric". From the context the reader would understand that "it" refers here to not being a partial order. Again, this is not equivalent. The inequality relation is not a partial order, but its transitive closure is not antisymmetric. Perhaps the intention is "not being antisymmetric". But also then, this is not equivalent. The empty relation is not a partial order, but its transitive closure is antisymmetric. This can be corrected by replacing "transitive closure being antisymmetric" by "reflexive transitive closure not being antisymmetric", but again the actual clarifying effect on the poor reader is open to doubt.
• "in other words whenever such triples A, B, C occur, the relation can only be transitive if A, B and C are considered to be equivalent." Just having been told that having an intransitivity "is not the same property as the relation not being transitive", the reader may perhaps be forgiven if they don't understand what this has to do with it. All options can be considered equivalent under some equivalence relation, so in this form the statement can be made somewhat vacuously true. However, in fact the relation can only be transitive if A, B and C are equal, a much stronger property. Since the context has forced the reader to assume that A, B and C are different options, it is better to phrase this as: "whenever such triples A, B, C occur, the relation is not transitive". It is not clear in what sense this statement (in either form) is a previous statement rephrased "in other words"; trying to understand that may again confuse the reader, and I don't see how to clarify this.

 --Lambiam 22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Much appreciated - looking at it. Rp (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS you were right. Thanks again. Rp (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you check me and help edit (my english is poor) article? Thanx --Liso (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

import math

def make_derivative(f, deltaX):
    delta=[deltaX]
    function=[f]
    fnc=lambda x: (function[0](x+delta[0])-function[0](x))/delta[0]
    return fnc

cos=make_derivative(math.sin, 0.0000000001)

# cos(0)     ~> 1.0
# cos(math.pi/2)  ~> 0.0

Rp, I'm trying to get the Boy or Girl paradox article to reflect the actual paradox, which is that most of the time the problem statement is ambiguous and so has two correct answers. You once posted in the discussion page there, and I was wondering if you might return and help to build a consensus JeffJor (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invitation! I must say, my comment remarked that the present article gets it right, i.e. I liked the way it explained things (I haven't reread it yet to see whether I still like it). This is difficult to achieve, so I am skeptical of your idea for a big rewrite.

Furthermore, I believe your idea to make the article reflect the actual paradox is fundamentally flawed. The point of statistics puzzles, in my opinion, is that they are deliberately vague enough to suggest multiple interpretation, upon which the questioner can pull out a particular one and declare all other outcomes results of "faulty reasoning". It is essential to most of these puzzles to explain why different outcomes are possible by explaining how the underlying assumptions that produce them differ. Rp (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with your stressing the importance of making the distinction between occurrence and event, and that the very first thing to do for a problem like this is which sort of event the situation we've been told about should be considered to be an occurrence of; but it is my impression that the present article already does a good enough job of it (e.g. sample spaces are mentioned). So if you see deficiencies there I would suggest to improve locally. Rp (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a difference between a vague ambiguity, where all but one interpretation is based on faulty reasoning; and a true ambiguity, where the multiple interpretations are based on unflawed reasoning. Depending on the wording, the 1/2 answer could be based on flawed reasoning, or the 2/3 answer could be based on flawed reasoning, or neither could be.

The statement "(at least) one is a boy" can be made based on observing only one child, or based on observing two. When only one is observed, only half of the BG and GB cases can be included in the sample space and the answer has to be 1/2 (compare it to Bertrand's Box Paradox, with four boxes). When both are observed, all of the BG and GB cases are in the sample space, and the answer is 2/3.

The wording "(at least) one is a boy" (without stating how the observation was made) can be interpreted either way, the wording "you are told by the parent that (at least) one is a boy" must be interpreted as observing both, and the statement (from Mlodinow's book) "you recall that one is a boy, but you don't know if both are" is explicitly saying that only one child is observed. So errors are made both ways. That is what I am trying to emphasize. The previous article implies that it alwatys had to be 2/3, and that the 1/2 asnwer always had to be wrong. JeffJor (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't follow. The formulation how the observation was made is really unfortunate. It doesn't matter how that particular observation was made, what matters is which infinite set of possible observations we imagine it to be an occurrence of. Rp (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It matters how much information is observed in order to make what is only a partial description of the state of the experiment. Here's what I mean, and I'm switching to coins just to avoid connotations that are associated with the B/G problem:

• Experiment #1: Two coins are flipped behind a screen. I draw the screen back just enough to see one. I say "At least one of the two coins landed on Heads." What is the probability that both coins landed on Heads? Answer: 1/2.
• Experiment #2: Two coins are flipped behind a screen. I look behind the screen, and without letting you see I tell you "At least one of the two coins landed on Heads." What is the probability both coins landed on Heads? Answer: you would say 1/3.

Just the knowledge that "At least one of the two coins landed on Heads" is insufficient to answer the question. In order to define an event space, you need a necessary and sufficient condition that separates occurrences in the space from occurrences not in the space. And in this case, for "at least one landed on Heads" to be sufficient, we have to know if one coin was observed, or if two were. (AND, we also need to know why I said what I did when I looked at both, but that is a different issue.) JeffJor (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, point taken, and this is indeed a central issue in the Boy or Girl Paradox, but not the only one. Rp (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC).Reply

Actually, once you realize the issue exists, it is trivial to place it as the underlying issue for all of the problems. Any disgreement about the answer is ultimately a disagreement about whether one, or two, children were observed to make the claim "at least one is a boy." Depending on the wording, either side could be wrong about that, or it could be truly ambiguous.

Some might not be able to vocalize their understanding of why the observation is important. What generally happens is that the "one child observed" side uses the isomorphism of looking at the older child; and the "two children observed" camp accuses them of being wrong for caring about age. The argument stalls on that point, which actually isn't what is being said.JeffJor (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rp, thanks for the note about Freeciv. I usually base my notability standards on the general notability guideline, because if those requirements can be met then verifiability is pretty much sorted out too. So, we have the Free Games Net review, the Freeciv wiki, and the source code as references. The source code links didn't work for me but in principle its fine as a primary source verification. Other wikis aren't normally considered to be usuable as reliable sources, but if the freeciv community consider it to be both stable and accurate then I won't contest it - although again it's not independent. The Free Games Net review is the kind of thing required for the GNG but the source has to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) and preferably have some editorial oversight. I can't see any evidence of this at this site so I'd be inclined not to use it as evidence of notability or for verification. Google News gives good hits for reliable sources (although a lot of them can be press releases) - in this case we do get one hit for Freeciv, at a Japanese site called CodeZine [1]. It might be worth whacking it into Babel Fish to see if the coverage is "significant" (per WP:GNG.) Marasmusine (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that any further cross-referencing is necessary, but I have further split out Constant (programming) into its own article. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edits to Petri Net!

I wrote quite a big chunk of it, but I must say that I got kind of tired writing it, so I just watch it for changes nowadays. Great job you did... I only really learned about Petri Nets in university, so I am not aware of any new research, and I am not even aware of old ones, to be honest. Maybe you could put some '< ref >' into the article, the way you put them into the stuff you added? It would be great!

Thanks for the effort of adding to the article! Bests, Msoos (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I used to maintain a Petri net editor and simulator (Yasper), but in my present job we're not using them often enough to justify working on it further. It should really get a beta out, despite the remaining quirks it's so much better than the release. Apart from that I have a fundamental fondmess of coloured Petri nets because they communicate asynchronously and require all data to be passed around explicitly which I consider the only serious way of modelling concurrency. But I have no special expertise in Petri net theory. Rp (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reminder to self: How to make SVG versions of LaTeX diagrams.

Please review Syntactic Structures and suggest any improvements. --Zaheen (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I read your comment in the discussion page, but unfortunately it isn't very helpful for me. There are many references to support the text you quoted and called reverential in tone. The truth, for me at least, is that this tone cannot be helped. It is inevitable. Chomsky was, as a matter of fact, revered to some extent by generations of linguists from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and even now he is, although many of his earlier contributions have been abandoned later by himself and by other linguists. Chomsky really did change the landscape of linguistics with Syntactic Structures. Lees really did write almost a book-length review, a favorable review (i.e. not a critical one) in the journal Language that highly influenced the mindset of linguists back then and attracted them to the Chomskyian brand of linguistics. So Lees's review was really "favorable and highly influential". Historians of linguistics who lived through those times all say the same thing. Remember 1950s and 1960s was the time when new Linguistics departments and programs were being founded in American universities. Chomsky became kind of a superstar in this academic milieu during the latter half of the 20th century, and any unbiased, truthful account of Chomsky's work will inevitably reflect these facts, in content and in tone. --Zaheen (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the tone wasn't inevitable, we wouldn't be dealing with objectively describable material, and hence its discussion wouldn't belong in Wikipedia at all. But of course there is a difference between reverential writing (which this article is guilty of at present) and a discussion of reverence by others. The latter can be discussed objectively - although I think such discussion should remain limited to a hypothetical article The sociology of linguistics. . Rp (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is as vague as it gets for me. If you really think there is something "reverential" about the "tone" which the writeup is "guilty" of, please point out which part(s) of the article needs attention in that regard, and also, present some alternatives. I responded earlier about the part you quoted, I stood by my choice of words and I gave reasons why. Which parts of the article do you still contest? Why? How can the problem be solved? Be specific, give reasons why you think the tone here or there is wrong and present alternatives. I am sure it can be sorted out. But I am not interested in vague back-and-forths that lead to nowhere. --Zaheen (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right, of course. I'll do my best. Rp (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, I recently added a Syntactic Structures#Criticism section to the article on Syntactic Structures. Thought you might like reading it. Regards. --Zaheen (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have double checked and made some remarks at the talkpage, just as I doublecheck the sections I removed at the diagram article and made some remarks at it's talkpage. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I know from the article's discussion page, that you have made a comment pertaining to the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, the interest in seeing improvement is there, but I have umpteen such commitments standing (not only on Wikipedia), and I'm afraid my efforts are best spent elsewhere (I'm a fan, but Slade is not really my area of expertise). All the best with your efforts. Rp (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

IRCnet was not the original IRC network, [2] although I found a few websites and even some books that got this wrong. See Talk:EFnet#NickServ for a lengthy discussion of the various splits including the early Anarchy-Net split and much later IRCnet split.

It's right there in the article: EFnet was the original network until it split in two roughly equal halves, called EFnet and IRCnet. Rp (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stop by the talk page at Talk:Turing test#Question about a change --- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like your example very much--- (I saw [a car]yesterday) with green headlights], but I feel (perhaps its just me) that such a structure would not appear in the New Your Times, that it's an informal speaking thing where you throw out the clause at the end because you forgot to nest it properly (meaning context-free). I feel like this is a bastardization of "I saw a car with green headlights yesterday", and that the version you gave is slightly ungrammatical. But its the best example I've seen so far.

Do you know other examples? I commented on the talk page for Context free grammar too.Likebox (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a specialist in this area, but I know there is consensus among linguists that not all natural language is context-free. So I couldn't leave the article as it was, flatly asserting the opposite. Clearly, as soon as you reject all examples as "improper" just because they are not context-free, the statement that language is context-free becomes vacuous. You may be right that it's more likely to occur in spoken or informal language. Rp (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know the consensus: but the good examples of non-context-free constructions seem to be restricted to Swiss German. This comes from reading the articles that say that natural language isn't context free. I was hoping someone would give an English example, because there were some people in the 70's that said that English grammar is context free (at least almost entirely), and from going over the New York Times sentence by sentence, I couldn't find an example that contradicted this. Your example is, by far, the best I have seen.Likebox (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found your old user page while checking out some old edits. I have history merged it, so that all edits are in one place. I have also imported and edit to your user page from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 02:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've just noticed this edit to your user page, where you say that you are not the person who previously had this username. The first person who edited with the username "Rp" on Wikipedia edited while Wikipedia used UseModWiki, before February 2002. When Wikipedia upgraded from UseModWiki to Phase II software (which later became MediaWiki), all old account information was deleted, so anyone was able to take over the oldd account names. You can see the potential problems caused by that state of affairs at User talk:Hank Ramsey#Note. Graham87 03:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notification. I'm happy to put in some sort of reference to "the old Rp" if you tell me how. I waited 8 years before attempting to take the name Rp, which hasn't been used during that time. Rp (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

blijf af van mijn opmerkingen a.u.b.Wdl1961 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

heb je een voorbeeld? Rp (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aha, je bedoelt deze. Ik had niet begrepen dat je daarmee echt iets wilde zeggen. Misschien moet je het nog eens proberen. Rp (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Our article Relational model is entirely about database theory. The topic is nowhere to be found in e.g. the Handbook of mathematical logic, it isn't taught as part of the mathematical logic curriculum, and mathematical logicians don't study it. So I'm not sure what criterion you would use to argue that it is part of mathematical logic, apart from the fact that it uses some mathematical techniques. There are many parts of computer science that use mathematical techniques without being part of mathematical logic. Complexity theory, domain theory, and automata theory are some other examples. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article PEP tool has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence or even claim of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

SwisterTwister (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Algol68.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Entity-relationship model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page UML (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can I as why "we don't speak of pointers in [...] C#" if there are pointers in C# and they exceptionally are not inherit from common root type? I thought Wikipedia should be reliable source of information. 194.54.20.58 (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you mean in unsafe code? Sorry. Rp (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi RP, would you be able to add a row for ALGOL 68 to First-class function#Language support? Cheers, —Ruud 14:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done. Tables are hard :-( Rp (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Petri net, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nondeterminism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Freeciv may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}</ref>.).

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rp, In this edit to Syntactic sugar I corrected and expanded the discussion of parallel assignment in Notable examples, showing even more of its sugary goodness! Hope you enjoy; feel free to modify further or request changes (by me).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looks good now, thanks. I'm not sure I'd call this a 100% pure example of syntactic sugar: if you want to rewrite it you need to introduce an extra variable. Rp (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article ExSpecT has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Software package of dubious notability: orphaned since at least 2008, no references besides its own website.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Regarding You question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scripting_language#Article_is_unfocused
• I made a proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scripting_language#Focus_on_Script_and_Scripting.21
• You could use this Script_(computing)

Eventually it would be possible to grow the script page and dry out scripting language page down to another redirection page ;-)

Imagine a big knot of cable! What will You do? You drag out the individual cables one by one, or not? Manorainjan (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes you end up with an even bigger knot. But it is always laudable to try. There are a few examples on Wikipedia where I just gave up. Rp (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello member of Category:Wikipedians who use IRC! You are invited to join an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help aimed at defining a policy for prerequisites to being a helper in the "#wikipedia-en-help ^connect" channel in a section titled "New helper policy".

To prevent future mailings about IRC, you may remove your user page from Category:Wikipedians who use IRC.
Assistance is available upon request if you can't figure out where it is being added to your user page.
This message has been sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infinite monkey theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Infinite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rp,

We do not use redirects on disambiguation pages per MOS:DAB. I pointed the redirects at their mother pages.

1. Script (computing) is a redirect to Scripting language
2. script (Unix) had a lowercase s, so I changed it to Script (Unix) per MOS:CAPS
3. Scripts (artificial intelligence) is a redirect to Script theory

Your revert put them back to being redirects, and made the big S a little s. I hope you understand this. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining. I understand it, and it is wrong. I will attempt to fix the problem in a different way. Rp (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rp, Keep me posted on how you work it out. I am interested. Sincerely. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Meanwhile I've done so. Let me know what you think. Rp (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I continued this discussion at Talk:Script. Widefox; talk 12:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Algol68.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Moving a page. You need to make a proper move request. And not ask questions in a lead. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Be bold, they once said ... no worries, I'll revert to fixing typos and the like. Rp (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freeciv, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeciv (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Service description, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Service. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply