User talk:UnHoly
Go Ahead! post your comments!
Hi - thanks for noticing the existence of Jacques Cartier to replace Cartier. It's good that we can simply redirect it. -- Vardion 23:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just thought it seemed a little bit POV. Maybe I shouldn't have reverted it outright. Try reworking it a little and it'd probably be fine. Everyking 17:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Principia Mathematica
[edit]Thanks for the link to Leibniz's copy of Principia Mathematica. That's rather nice. I updated the link to point to the relevant page which mentions the copy, but couldn't find a version in English (although since the URL includes /fr/ in the path you might guess other languages were available). -- Solipsist 22:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Doomsday Argument discussion
[edit]Hi, I've added a reply to your paragraph on the Doomsday Argument discussion list. I'd be interested to hear what you think.
John Eastmond 17:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Rod of Rule
[edit]Thank you for your comments on the "Rod of rule" issue. I have moved them to the discussion page. If no one provides information about the source of this "legend", I'll go ahead and post that page on VfD.--JW1805 8 July 2005 03:13 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
World Factbook
[edit]The reason I removed the part about electoral regimes was a lack of sources. If you have a source, pitch in! - Thanks, Hoshie 10:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
[edit]
Hello UnHoly! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 331 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Steven Bonspille - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"Irrelevant" Link to Gilbert N. Lewis in Photon Number
[edit]If you use photon number as a physical representation for Qubit, why do you call the link irrelevant and remove it? After all, Lewis was the man who coined the name photon, who postulated photons as structural (not energetic) elements, and the man who proposed the number of photons - meaning "photon number" - as an important variable in a quantum system! In fact, he did it in 1926, so 70 years before Qubit was created.
I would agree that the link location in the Table was not the best choice though. How about briefly defining each of the physical representations used in the Table, including photon number, and placing the link, to Lewis or his article, and some other necessary links there? Do you think you could contribute?--C. Trifle (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. In fact, there is a nonlinearity in an equation that is quite old, which occurs especially for a small number of photons. So a kind of defintion might help. But this would need some recent references. Otherwise it would be considered as Original Research. Let's leave it as it stands. Regards. --C. Trifle (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, UnHoly. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)