Welcome!
Hello, Allan McInnes/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —
R. Koot
15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, while I generally don't think it is a good idea to confront new users with the darker side of Wikipedia, I have a request for you. Looking at the edits you have already made and your academic home page, you seem to be very knowledgable about CSP, distributed systems and such. A number of articles, such as unbounded nondeterminism and actor model and process calculi have been under heavy edit by Carl Hewitt (of actors fame). There are some serious doubts about the factual accuracy though (they seems to paint the actos model in a brighter color than it really is). Would you mind looking over them? Cheers, — R. Koot 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Allan. I don't think we have met before, but I wanted to thank you for preparing and presenting evidence in the arbitration case. I know from experience that this is a lot of work, which could conceivably be spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia or even, gasp, research. Enjoy your Christmas break! -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I created an article about you ( Allan McInnes). Please feel free to correct any errors or omissions.-- Carl Hewitt 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You sure are one hell of a recruiter. :) I will try and contribute from time to time, particularly on the more general topics of Computer Science. Also, here's a relevant link from the WP:MEA project... Missing NIST Algorithms and Data Structures. Gflores Talk 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your work in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Computer Science topics. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-27 23:54 Z
Hey Allan, good work with WP:CompSci :D I'll try to drop in from time to time, but currently (meat-space obligations) > (digital-space obligations). I just want to give you a heads up that, there's a small number of articles on Software Engineering (as a disciple). Since the wiki doesn't have a dedicated SoftEng project, you might wanna take those under the CS blanket, thought i'm sure that George Parnas/ Ian Summerville would have me thrown in the PDP-01 Hell for saying so ;) Project2501a 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the hearty welcome to the project; I'm glad to be here. Why do you think it is that most of CS Wikipedians are theory people? Very strange — not that I'm complaining. -- Mgreenbe 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding: I'd be happy to be involved, though I'm trying to put as much of my effort into the logic articles (will try to start to logic wikiproject myself soon). I don't have much of a feel for whether trying to inject new life into the old project or starting a new one will work out better, but the former is probably less work and if it doesn't work out you can try your original plan. --- Charles Stewart (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
My, what a nice welcome to the wikiproject! Hope everything works out with it: it looks very promising so far. --- Charles Stewart (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,
I'm not about to get into a war with you over technical details about what you believe is the best syntax for English. To continually hit upon my use of English is taken as a personal attack; you started to judge me and not the article or the facts. — Dzonatas 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem ... if you check the talk on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, I proposed the same two articles there, and also the issue of implementing Sarbanes Oxley. I personally do not have a good grasp of what is considered computer science anyway. I learned my application programming trade after dropping out of College (couldn't make the grades) in the 1960's, then after I had worked in several different industries, managed to get back to College, this time to use the courses I had got good grades in, as collateral to take every class in computing that was then offered in academia. I was then not interested in the semantics, but in practical theory and technique, then I was back into application programming again. User:AlMac| (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this? Cheers, — Ruud 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You can look at it as a hit back, but that is your way to filter the messages. There is a lot of discussion and a lot of viewpoints that can be brought up in endless debates, but there are those that come to wikipedia to actually discuss the views and explore ideas. To prohibit such discussion is against the very foundation of open content and Wikipedia itself. It happens, and there are those who can work together. Do you want to work together? Are you interested in all the possibilities on human knowledge? — Dzonatas 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you over the contributions you have made towards the Computer science articles as well as the wikiproject. I believe that it helped improve the overall quality of the wikipedian experience. -- Evanx 05:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured. :) Oops, I meant to post software architect in place of systems architect. Frankly, I don't have a clue the differences b/w these (or if they relate to CS). However, software architect and systems architect both are categorized as computer science. Should I remove the cats? P.S. Your input is needed on WP:COMPSCI. Gflores Talk 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Using your standard, we have to delete bioinformatics and many other terms( Cryptography, Graph theory, they do not even have 'computer' in the name! They belong to Math!) in computer science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liao ( talk • contribs) .
Thank you for your warm welcome. I'll try to do my best with the C++ project and other stuff. De ryck C. 12:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I will do my best to achieve what the project aims. Ozgurgerilla 03.10, 23 April 2006 (GMT)
Hi Allan. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I may not have yet the right practice. Still trying to learn; About the recommended spelling of "meta-model" into "metamodel", I have added some comments but I am not sure this is the right way to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MDE ( talk • contribs) .
The way you formulated it is also used in Milner’s book on the topic, but, for what it’s worth, I do not quite understand why it’s useful. Isn’t concurrency intended to be expressed as process, vertical bar, process? And, since P is the non-terminal that describes all processes, wouldn’t the most straightforward way to write that be P|P? I know it’s generally a good thing to use the same notation as the textbook does, but in this case, I find the indices confusing, not clarifying, for anyone familiar with *BNF but not (yet) with π-calculus. To disambiguate further from the use of P and derivatives as variable/process names, how about the following?
The advantage would be that proc isn’t used anywhere else in the article, so the concurrency syntax would be easy to read, and the disadvantage, of course, that it’s not quite the same notation as used by Milner et al.
On a related note, in his book, Milner defines a separate non-terminal for x(y) and x<y> and defines sums as part of the process syntax. Should I plagiarise from thereput that into the article? —
xyzzy
n
21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
See: Talk:Interface_Control_Document
Hey, just thought you might be interested to know that Wikimedia New Zealand is getting a bit of grunt behind it, and you may be interested in contributing, feel free to pop over to http://nz.wikimedia.org and register your name etc if you are indeed interested. -- NigelJ talk 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Allan McInnes/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —
R. Koot
15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi, while I generally don't think it is a good idea to confront new users with the darker side of Wikipedia, I have a request for you. Looking at the edits you have already made and your academic home page, you seem to be very knowledgable about CSP, distributed systems and such. A number of articles, such as unbounded nondeterminism and actor model and process calculi have been under heavy edit by Carl Hewitt (of actors fame). There are some serious doubts about the factual accuracy though (they seems to paint the actos model in a brighter color than it really is). Would you mind looking over them? Cheers, — R. Koot 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Allan. I don't think we have met before, but I wanted to thank you for preparing and presenting evidence in the arbitration case. I know from experience that this is a lot of work, which could conceivably be spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia or even, gasp, research. Enjoy your Christmas break! -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I created an article about you ( Allan McInnes). Please feel free to correct any errors or omissions.-- Carl Hewitt 19:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You sure are one hell of a recruiter. :) I will try and contribute from time to time, particularly on the more general topics of Computer Science. Also, here's a relevant link from the WP:MEA project... Missing NIST Algorithms and Data Structures. Gflores Talk 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your work in improving Wikipedia's coverage of Computer Science topics. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-27 23:54 Z
Hey Allan, good work with WP:CompSci :D I'll try to drop in from time to time, but currently (meat-space obligations) > (digital-space obligations). I just want to give you a heads up that, there's a small number of articles on Software Engineering (as a disciple). Since the wiki doesn't have a dedicated SoftEng project, you might wanna take those under the CS blanket, thought i'm sure that George Parnas/ Ian Summerville would have me thrown in the PDP-01 Hell for saying so ;) Project2501a 11:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the hearty welcome to the project; I'm glad to be here. Why do you think it is that most of CS Wikipedians are theory people? Very strange — not that I'm complaining. -- Mgreenbe 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding: I'd be happy to be involved, though I'm trying to put as much of my effort into the logic articles (will try to start to logic wikiproject myself soon). I don't have much of a feel for whether trying to inject new life into the old project or starting a new one will work out better, but the former is probably less work and if it doesn't work out you can try your original plan. --- Charles Stewart (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
My, what a nice welcome to the wikiproject! Hope everything works out with it: it looks very promising so far. --- Charles Stewart (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks,
I'm not about to get into a war with you over technical details about what you believe is the best syntax for English. To continually hit upon my use of English is taken as a personal attack; you started to judge me and not the article or the facts. — Dzonatas 18:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem ... if you check the talk on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, I proposed the same two articles there, and also the issue of implementing Sarbanes Oxley. I personally do not have a good grasp of what is considered computer science anyway. I learned my application programming trade after dropping out of College (couldn't make the grades) in the 1960's, then after I had worked in several different industries, managed to get back to College, this time to use the courses I had got good grades in, as collateral to take every class in computing that was then offered in academia. I was then not interested in the semantics, but in practical theory and technique, then I was back into application programming again. User:AlMac| (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this? Cheers, — Ruud 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You can look at it as a hit back, but that is your way to filter the messages. There is a lot of discussion and a lot of viewpoints that can be brought up in endless debates, but there are those that come to wikipedia to actually discuss the views and explore ideas. To prohibit such discussion is against the very foundation of open content and Wikipedia itself. It happens, and there are those who can work together. Do you want to work together? Are you interested in all the possibilities on human knowledge? — Dzonatas 15:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you over the contributions you have made towards the Computer science articles as well as the wikiproject. I believe that it helped improve the overall quality of the wikipedian experience. -- Evanx 05:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured. :) Oops, I meant to post software architect in place of systems architect. Frankly, I don't have a clue the differences b/w these (or if they relate to CS). However, software architect and systems architect both are categorized as computer science. Should I remove the cats? P.S. Your input is needed on WP:COMPSCI. Gflores Talk 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Using your standard, we have to delete bioinformatics and many other terms( Cryptography, Graph theory, they do not even have 'computer' in the name! They belong to Math!) in computer science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Liao ( talk • contribs) .
Thank you for your warm welcome. I'll try to do my best with the C++ project and other stuff. De ryck C. 12:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the warm welcome. I will do my best to achieve what the project aims. Ozgurgerilla 03.10, 23 April 2006 (GMT)
Hi Allan. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I may not have yet the right practice. Still trying to learn; About the recommended spelling of "meta-model" into "metamodel", I have added some comments but I am not sure this is the right way to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MDE ( talk • contribs) .
The way you formulated it is also used in Milner’s book on the topic, but, for what it’s worth, I do not quite understand why it’s useful. Isn’t concurrency intended to be expressed as process, vertical bar, process? And, since P is the non-terminal that describes all processes, wouldn’t the most straightforward way to write that be P|P? I know it’s generally a good thing to use the same notation as the textbook does, but in this case, I find the indices confusing, not clarifying, for anyone familiar with *BNF but not (yet) with π-calculus. To disambiguate further from the use of P and derivatives as variable/process names, how about the following?
The advantage would be that proc isn’t used anywhere else in the article, so the concurrency syntax would be easy to read, and the disadvantage, of course, that it’s not quite the same notation as used by Milner et al.
On a related note, in his book, Milner defines a separate non-terminal for x(y) and x<y> and defines sums as part of the process syntax. Should I plagiarise from thereput that into the article? —
xyzzy
n
21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\ talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
See: Talk:Interface_Control_Document
Hey, just thought you might be interested to know that Wikimedia New Zealand is getting a bit of grunt behind it, and you may be interested in contributing, feel free to pop over to http://nz.wikimedia.org and register your name etc if you are indeed interested. -- NigelJ talk 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)