G'day Brendan and welcome to Wikipedia. This website can be very unfriendly to celebrities sometimes -- some people have very strong views against self-promotion. I've put up a pre-emptive defence for you at Talk:Bible code. It looks like you're famous enough that there couldn't really be any rational case against your Bible code article, but you never know with some people.
A few tips for you:
- Peruse Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers and associated pages
- Sign talk page entries with ~~~~, which is automatically converted to a name and date
- Ask questions on Wikipedia:Village pump
- Consider adding yourself to Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Australia
-- Tim Starling 09:32, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)
- 1 Bible code
- 2 Big O notation
- 3 Binomial distribution
- 4 ?
- 5 AFD on Alexander Rotenberg
- 6 WikiProject Australia newsletter
- 7 WikiProject Australia newsletter
- 8 Hi Brendan...
- 9 WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
- 10 Computational Complexity: P and Co-NP or whatever it is
- 11 Ivan Panin
- 12 Cages
- 13 Pigeonholes
- 14 Codes of reality and Biblical codes
- 15 New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
- 16 Alternate account
- 17 RfC:Infobox Road proposal
- 18 Disambiguation link notification for June 5
- 19 Speedy deletion nomination of Electronic Journal of Combinatorics
- 20 Erdos and all that
I want to communicate with you or Drosnin about the code : is it possible ? I have few questions...
First question : what do you(Kay and Drosnin) think of the parisian Chamman ?
Second question : what was the size of the nuclear explosion in 2006 in Paris ?
And few others...MKay
Big O notation
I noticed that you contributed to Big O notation, so thought I'd leave you a message here about it. I put together a new form of the table on the Talk page and I thought I'd solicit some feedback on it. If you have a moment to look it over I'd be grateful. I have some math background (B.S.) but I'm not a mathematician, and I'd hate to leave something important out.
"this rule" refers to the rule of thumb introduced in the preceding sentence. Unfortunately it seems that it has no proper name. It has two parts: the first part is about the criteria for a good, the second about the criteria of an excellent approximation. I've just checked the link and it worked.
Falk Lieder 15:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
AFD on Alexander Rotenberg
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Rotenberg. There is a debate about whether this is indeed a notable Torah codes researcher. Strangely, somebody has attempted to impersonate you on the AFD talk page, claiming notability for Rotenberg. --C S (Talk) 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
I'm going to paste the entire criticism section into the talk page for you to edit and comment as you see fit, the section will be monitored to make sure that this "edit space" is exclusively used for you. I think it's best that this happen in public view on the talk page, for obvious reasons.
Also, FYI...there were one or two acts of possible IP vandalism at the Bible Code article immediately before you tagged the article and posted on the talk page. I'm thinking of having the page locked so that only established editors can edit, because if unregistered users are making edits that appear to represent pro-MBBK POV's, they could be either well-meaning friends, or they might be unfriendly. Please protect yourself by making sure you always log in.
- I would suggest that you invite user User:Audacity (a skeptic) to look at your proposed changes, that you discuss the changes you'd like on the talk page, as you have been invited to do. Please don't continue editing the article directly without discussing on talk, I find your recent edits to be heavily POV'd and this is a problem in the context of your WP:COI on the topic. WNDL42 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are quite wrong that these edits are "heavily POV'd." The changes made by McKay in these edits (a) corrected incorrect information, and (b) corrected instances where viewpoints are presented as facts (in violation of the WP:NPOV policy). If you believe these edits are "heavily POV'd," then please explain why.
- The only change I would suggest is that in the instance where McKay added the word "claimed," he should have used the word "argued" instead. The WP:WORDS policy says that the word "claim" should be used only in limited circumstances.
- AviN1 (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Computational Complexity: P and Co-NP or whatever it is
Thanks for the changes there. I tried to simplify it into something rather like English. Sometimes you can just look at an article and think this is written by a lecturer who has done it so often he has forgotten how to explain it. SimonTrew (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
My classic example for that is to ask somebody how to tie their shoelaces. Almost nobody can explain how to do it in a way that another would actually be able to reproduce it. SimonTrew (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Every thing is correct. Text of Panin is very close to the Text of Westcott and Hort. He did not use corrupt Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus is very different from text of Panin. Westcott and Hort gave very good text of the New Testament for us. Better than text of Nestle-Aland. You should know that. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the article Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener someone wrote: "He was an advocate of the Textus Receptus over more modern manuscripts as a source for Bible translations". Why you did not protest? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- In the discussion on the article Ivan Panin you did ask for examples. If you didn't find it go to the russian version of the article and click on "The Number Seven" on the External links section. Max —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
Hi, you remarked in the past on the talk page of that article that you were concerned about some of the entries. I'm inclined to agree. Not only can I not find the mention of the number for the (4,9)-cage in the MathWorld article, but Dynamic Cage Survey from Exoo and Jajcay (2008) doesn't mention it either. What were the other values you were concerned about? - Taxman Talk 18:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think (4,9), (4,10), (5,7) and (6,7) are just bounds, but I'm asking Exoo to check. McKay (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Done! McKay (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Brendan. I notice you (in 2006) had a sensible comment about the name pigeonhole principle. Discussing it in class yesterday led me to make a contribution. Zaslav (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Codes of reality and Biblical codes
I am a person who has done some amount of writing on a subject that seems to be quite close to the subject matter of Biblical codes. Since I think you are interested in the theme, may I request you to go through this link: http://vvv03vedpages.activeboard.com/t36942376/the-inner-secrets-of-reality/ and read through the initial pages of my book: Codes of reality! What is language?
The link to that book you will get from the first link.
New Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry
Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns?
I've been ordered to fix the page so that it accords with my understanding of the NPOV policy. I'm happy to do that but I have a lot of work at my job.
Now I've been told that I must make the changes by April 30th or the NPOV tag will be removed. I simply can't learn how to use Wikipedia as a newcomer, become familiar with all the sources, and make the edits if I must do it all by April 30th.
- (talk page stalker) actually, a 'none of your business' will suffice too - I'm sure Biosketch isn't looking to put on any pressure, but I found this a little shakily worded, as can happen at times with a text-only medium. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
RfC:Infobox Road proposal
You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Sagan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tambura (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.
Speedy deletion nomination of Electronic Journal of Combinatorics
A tag has been placed on Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ~ Boomur [☎] 03:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- sorry, i don't know what i was thinking. feel free to remove this. ~ Boomur [☎] 03:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)