User talk:Gofors

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Gofors! I am Calaka and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calaka (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. The page you asked to be deleted will be deleted soon. Pages can only be deleted by admins but I posted a note on the page and an admin will pick up the note and delete the page from there. No harm done! :) If you need any more help with other things, don't hesitate to ask me.Calaka (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Augmented Homology

Hello, Gofors. You have new messages at Talk:Augmental_homology.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Haruth (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Augmental homology

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

This article is original research -- see Wikipedia:No original research.

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. Radagast3 (talk) 11:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Augmental homology

I have nominated Augmental homology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augmental homology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Radagast3 (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly complicated TeX code

I found this:

D:={\Bigl \{}{w}=w_{{\lambda _{1}},{\mu _{1}}}\cdot \dots \cdot w_{{\lambda _{k}},{\mu _{_{^{k}}}}}\mid {\Bigl [}{\bigl [}{\bigl [}\{{\overline {p_{1}}}({w})\}\propto {\Delta _{1}}{\bigr ]}\land {\bigl [}\{{\overline {p_{2}}}({w})\}\in {\Delta _{2}}{\bigr ]}\land {\Bigl [}{{\lambda _{1}<\dots <\lambda _{k}} \atop {\mu _{1}\leq \dots \leq \mu _{k}}}{\Bigr ]}{\bigr ]}\lor

and I changed it to this:

D:={\Bigl \{}w=w_{\lambda _{1},\mu _{1}}\cdots w_{\lambda _{k},\mu _{k}}\mid {\Bigl [}{\bigl [}{\bigl [}\{{\overline {p_{1}}}(w)\}\propto \Delta _{1}{\bigr ]}\land {\bigl [}\{{\overline {p_{2}}}(w)\}\in \Delta _{2}{\bigr ]}\land {\Bigl [}{\lambda _{1}<\cdots <\lambda _{k} \atop \mu _{1}\leq \cdots \leq \mu _{k}}{\Bigr ]}{\bigr ]}\lor

Although the only difference visible to the reader, as far as I've noticed, is the \cdots appearing as three dots where five dots appear in the original, the TeX code is easier to read, and that makes a difference for those who edit.

Why would one write

w_{{{\lambda_{{k}}},{\mu_{_{^{k}}}}}}

when

w_{\lambda_k,\mu_k}

is much easier to read and edit, and has the same effect on what the reader sees? Why should one write ({w}) instead of (w), or \in{\Delta_2} instead of \in \Delta_2 ? Similarly I changed

{{\lambda_1<\dots<\lambda_k}\atop{\mu_1\le\dots\le \mu_k}}

to

{\lambda_1<\cdots<\lambda_k \atop \mu_1\le\cdots\le \mu_k}

where the only curly braces are at the two ends. And I changed

{w} =

to

w =

etc. Needless complications in code that have no effect make things harder for people who edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stanley–Reisner ring (binary operations)

The article Stanley–Reisner ring (binary operations) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a content fork of Stanley-Reisner rings, consisting mostly of original research that was deleted from the original article. See the related deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augmental homology‎‎.

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. r.e.b. (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]