User talk:EdwardH

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unification (computer science): awkward line break[edit]

Hello EdwardH,

Thank you for improving the formula layout of the article Unification (computer science). However, in the section Unification (computer science)#Substitution, I had intentionally used a table to ease understanding of how substitution application works - each variable should be aligned to the term it gets instantiated to. In my browser (desktop view), that always looked fine, so I wonder what problem was the reason for removing the table. Maybe there is a way to keep the alignment but solving your layout problem?

Best regards

Jochen Burghardt (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jochen,
While the layout did make it easier to examine the substitution, I thought that the layout disrupted the natural flow of the text. Do you think that emboldening the substituted terms like this 'f(x, a, g(z), y) yields f(h(a, y), a, g(b), y)', would demonstrate the substitution as well as the table layout?
EdwardH 16:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This could be a solution, since every 2nd subterm of f happens to be unchanged, so bold/non-bold would happen to give a good contrast in this case. However, my personal taste would still prefer some table solution; what would you think about the following one, looking like indented TeX displaystyle ("$$...$$"), often used in wikipedia math articles (e.g. Lambda calculus#Motivation and below, obtained there by ":<math>...</math>")?

As a first-order example, applying the substitution { xh(a,y), zb } to the term

f( x ,a,g( z ),y)
f( h(a,y) ,a,g( b ),y) .

Or, additionally using boldface according to your suggestion:

f( x ,a,g( z ),y)
f( h(a,y) ,a,g( b ),y) .

- Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work; it can't hurt to copy what other articles are doing. It could do with some changes to the spacing of the punctuation though:
f( x , a, g( z ), y)
f( h(a,y) , a, g( b ), y).
EdwardH (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine; I'll copy your version into the article. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

  • dates
  • years
  • commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
  • common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

(This even applies for infoboxes.)

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those and bringing this to my attention. I'll make sure to fix any more in the future. EdwardH (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Hiya, I wanted to apologize for the no doubt 50+ notifications you probably got,
It was just easier using Twinkle as opposed to manually removing each and every afd template :)
Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You needn't worry; thanks very much for cleaning up after me. EdwardH (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome :). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias Opinion[edit]

Don't you think Blake Gripling for whatever reason is being biased on some articles a.e Sindikato Chveawful (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it ok for me to start a more concise article on the Sindikato if blake does succeed in deleting it,for me its injustice to hush up the fact that a group well organized crime syndicates operates unimpeded in the Philippines i want to expose this if so can my article be safe from deletion whats the guidelines in particular is to be followed,i dont want my article to be deleted needlessly Chveawful (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to edit notice[edit]

Hello sir, i am grateful you gave me the opinion about my edits to syedna mufaddal saifuddin . But as being a dawoodi bohra community member i had the information so i edited the content. I will give some points which i want to edit

  • first- the name should be called with respect

The name is Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin(T.U.S)

  • second-khuzema qutbuddin is just a liar and now has no relation with our syedna saab .so please remove his name as relation to syedna

he has 6 brothers nd 3 sisters add their name or even add the names of his sons and daughters . There are many more incorrect things written about His Holiness . please either let me edit it the content —  Hope you see my view and do what i recommend With regards CoolMrtz

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolmrtz (talkcontribs) 11:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Coolmrtz: Regarding TUS, The Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles" so I'm afraid it must be left out. Regarding your allegation that Khuzaima Qutbuddin "is just a liar and now has no relation with [Mufaddal Saifuddin]": Wikipedia has a strict policy on information about living persons, which requires that nearly all information must be sourced from reliable, independent sources. Poorly sourced information is removed immediately. Also, no matter what happens to Qutbuddin and Saifuddin, they are, and always will be, related.EdwardH (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)