User talk:Alain r

Welcome!

Hello Alain r, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 15:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

le bonjour de Woit

Je vous rappelle une phrase du prix Nobel Richard Feynman:

- Les théoriciens des cordes ne font pas de prédictions, ils font des excuses.

En quoi cela me concerne-t-il ??! Alain r (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

le bonjour de Grossabots

salut Alain r, j'hallucine, ils sont encore en train de se prendre la tête, en anglais en plus. bonne continuation

Salut Grossabots. On ne les refait pas, en effet. Comparativement, sur-la-toile doit paraître bien calme depuis quelques mois. Alain Riazuelo 21:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encore un p'tit coup de Bogdanov !

J'ai conscience du fait que tu ne m'adresseras sans doute plus jamais la parole après avoir vu mes énormités, mais ma conscience professionelle me force à te filer le lien [1]. S'il te prend l'envie de commenter et peut-être de précser pour que je meurs moins bête... :) Rama 18:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Je pense que Rama était exact dans son explication mais, naturellement, je serais très intéressé d'entendre votre avis. Chaleureusement, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non non, pas "exact": j'ai essayé d'esquisser une idée générale, mais c'était vraiment à la louche. Compare avec la formulation de Alain_r et tu vois la différence entre quelqu'un qui a une vague idée et quelqu'un qui sait. Cas d'école. Rama 21:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article evaluation?

Hello. Apropos your past interest in the matter, I was wondering if you'd care to check Bogdanov Affair. I have been trying to improve this article over the past couple months in my odd snatches of free time, and I think it is currently a useful and informative piece of expository writing. (A dreary rain of sockpuppet edits has continued to drizzle upon it, alas, leading to episodes of semi-protection and an awful lot of blocks.) Zippedmartin mentioned a few issues on the Talk page, which I tried to address; at the moment, I can't think of any other things to do with the article, and I'd like any additional opinions you have to offer.

Like the saying says, "Criticism is the only known antidote to error." Your comments are welcome. Best wishes to you and yours.

(Aussi, merci mille fois pour votre explication de l'Affreuse Kablooie Spatiale, l'univers ekpyrotique et tout cela dans votre légende d'image!)

Anville 17:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments; they were indeed exactly the type of inputs I had hoped to receive. I believe I have addressed them by now (or at least as far as the reliable sources I can find allow), though little nits remain to be picked, such as finding a better word for "Implications". More detailed notes exist here, should you wish to comment further.

Again, best wishes. Anville 22:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Dear Alain r, thanks for your comments. I really don't have an infinite amount of time and the goal and virtues of the discussion are not quite clear from your message but my e-mail is myfirstname dot mylastname at gmail dot com. Thanks, Lumidek --Lumidek (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational constant

Dear Alain r; Until now, we have not been capable of defining a precise value for the gravitational constant or the Planck length. I believe the following equation will allow a more precise definition for both of these values.

L₁ = (L₂)² divided by L₃

L₁ = 2pi(Planck length)(3/2)^1/2

L₂ = (1/2)(electron Compton wavelength)

L₃ = (2pi)² (light velocity)(one second)

Let me know if you have an interest in this. DonJStevens (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]