User talk:Gareth Jones

→ JarlaxleArtemis 22:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gareth - hopefully you've now logged on under this name as opposed to the IP address alone and are free to work. :) ...en passant! 15:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just curious as to what you felt needed updating on this article. Please post your feelings to the Royal Mail talk page so that other users can update the article where you feel it is out of date. haz (user talk) 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Benjamin Polak requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lumpability is a method for reducing the size of the state space of some continuous-time Markov chains.

The sentence above is not a proper way to start a Wikipedia article. Is it about literary theory, chemistry, ethics, biology, history of Roman jurisprudence, etc? The lay reader finishes reading the sentence without finding out. I changed it to say

In probability theory, lumpability is a method for reducing the size of the state space of some continuous-time Markov chains.

Michael Hardy (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the phrase "In queuing theory..." succeeds in telling the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. The educated lay person may well never have heard of queuing theory. (See my recent edits to Gordon–Newell theorem). Michael Hardy (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gareth, I was intrigued by your addition to Gaussian elimination as I don't recall having heard of Grassmann's algorithm. I had a quick look via Google at the book you're referring to and I'm wondering, is Grassman's algorithm only meant for computing stationary states of a Markov chains (i.e., for solving π = Qπ where Q is the transition matrix) or can it be applied more widely? Cheers, Jitse Niesen (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I haven't seen it applied elsewhere so don't know. Gareth Jones (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say thanks for removing a bunch of flags according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Garion96 (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have selectively added doctoral students to the info box for this article for a second time. If you read the accompanying text, you will see that Nigel Hitchin and Graeme Segal were also students of Atiyah, but you have for some reason chosen to disregard them. If you are familiar with British mathematics, you would appreciate that they were two of Atiyah's most significant and influential students. I personally know many of the people mentioned in the article. I would say that their merit cannot be based on whether they have a wikipedia article or not. Why is David Tall a more significant Warwick mathematician than John D.S. Jones or David Elworthy? Or Lisa Jeffries less distinguished than Ruth Lawrence? It is unreasonable to make this kind of selection, since there are no reasonable criteria (having a wikipedia article is not a reason!) That is why, in order not to offend living mathematicians or Atiyah himself, I suggest you leave Ph.D. students out of the info box. The article itself discusses his students in a very balanced and fair way.Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Lord Irvine and the present Archbishop of Canterbury are honorary fellows of Christ's Colllege, Cambridge. There are several others. Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop you a note to say thank you for linking Solstice.

Warmest, Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.136.84 (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I notice you undid a user's first contribution to WP (and without explanation), when it would have been better to move the new info from the Ref section to the body text, and even better to source the new info, as I did. [1] Remember not to WP:BITE the newbies, and WP:PRESERVE info. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I hadn't noticed. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have changed the article to show that his full name is David John Cameron MacKay. Do you have any reference for that? Would be good to have as I can not find it stated anywhere online. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gareth, thanks for your efforts in creating the Tom Whiteside article. Could you please kindly checkout the Michael Hoskin obituary reference and weblink I have added today, for whether it is OK. Michael's son has kindly provided a link to where it may be read. --Logicus (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand some idea : [2]. As such, Legendre polynomials can be generalized (In what way?) to express the symmetries of semi-simple Lie groups (not SO(3)?) and Riemannian symmetric spaces. (not euclidean ?) Can you explain me it? Thank you very much. Gvozdet (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand some idea : [3]. As such, Legendre polynomials can be generalized (In what way?) to express the symmetries of semi-simple Lie groups (not SO(3)?) and Riemannian symmetric spaces. (not euclidean ?) Can you explain me it? Thank you very much. Gvozdet (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In M/G/1 queue, I changed the first of the following to the second:

i-1

i − 1

The first uses a hyphen instead of a minus sign and lacks spaces before and after it. The second is standard and prescribed by WP:MOSMATH. If it appears on your browser as on mine, the advantage of legibility should be apparent. (I made the spaces non-breakable. Similarly, I changed i+1 to i + 1.) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you're right, it does make it much easier to read. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another TeX issue: \text{max} does not always give the same results as \max. For example

${\displaystyle {\text{max}}_{x\in A}\,}$

${\displaystyle \max _{x\in A}\,}$

The first of these uses \text{max}_{x\in A} and the second uses \max_{x\in A}. The position of the subscript is different and on some browsers, or with uses using mathJax, the font may look different. In TeX and LaTeX generally, when you use \max, then the subscript appears directly below the word "max" when it's in a "displayed" setting, and below and to the right when it's in an "inline" setting (unless manually overridden by \displaystyle). Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the heads up. Gareth Jones (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:James R Jackson.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed details in the licensing section. This is the first non-free image I have uploaded. Can you review what I have added and see if it is appropriate? Gareth Jones (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth - what precisely was your motivation behind moving the BRR reference to notes ? It should remain in the reference section as it was the first paper on this topic.

Are u a working mathematician ? (Samuelpetterson talk)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for being bold. However, I don't feel citing references inline with wikilinks and linking to doi/online versions of the referenced material in references is controversial. I feel it objectively improves the quality of articles and ability of readers to follow up the specific claims made in an article. See WP:REF for more on this.

To leave comments in a user page in future, use the 'new section' link at the top of the talk page and sign your posts with four tildes (~). To undent a reply use "::" before your text. See WP:USERPAGE.

Gareth Jones (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I hope i understand now better how to leave comments. By any chance , are u a mathematician or was your undergrad in math ? Samuelpetterson (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a degree in mathematics. Gareth Jones (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth, I just came across one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that such a longstanding and obviously experienced editor hadn't been made an Autopatroller. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gareth Jones (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moment closure is currently an orphan, i.e. no other articles link to it. That's something to work on. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth, on Piecewise-Deterministic Markov Process and G-network and wide-sense stationary process, you changed hyphens to en dashes. Hopefully you've already figured out not to do that, but if you're unsure, please say and we can discuss. I fixed those. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've read the MOS and understand the distinction better now. Gareth Jones (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please look over my draft. If you agree with me that it is important maybe you can create a new stub which conforms with wiki's standards. (Shuroo)

Halfin-Whitt regime

For any service system in general, the seminal result by Shlomo Halfin and Ward Whitt about the asymptotic behavior of heavy traffic queues with many exponential servers had a large impact on Queueing Theory. They obtained their result in an unconventional way achieving high utilization by simultaneously increasing the customer arrival rate and the number of servers. In the Halfin-Whitt regime it is assumed that the traffic intensity of the system remains close to 1 while the number of servers grows without bound. Halfin and Whitt showed in their pioneering effort that in the regime described above, the properly centered and scaled queue length process will converge to a limiting diffusion.

[edit] ReferencesS. Halfin and W. Whitt. Heavy taffic limits for queues with many exponential servers. Operations Research, 29:567–588, 1981.

J. E. Reed. The G/GI/N Queue in the Halfin-Whitt regime. Annals of Applied Probability, 19:2211-2269, 2009.

Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard

Shuroo (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. If I understand correctly, the Halfin-Whitt regime is a particular type of heavy-traffic regime whereby under certain limiting assumptions a discrete queueing network behaves like a deterministic/differential equation type system or like a diffusion [4]. While this seems like a particularly notable result in the area of such limiting results, as far as I am aware Wikipedia currently contains no articles on heavy-traffic limits/diffusion approximations to queueing systems. Perhaps this information would find itself best placed in a future article on that topic.

While the topic is interesting, I can't commit to writing an article on it at this time. Gareth Jones (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a brief comment about this to the M/M/c queue article. Gareth Jones (talk) 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't quite what I was looking for, but thanks for your help (and for notifying me too). I've replied on WP:RX. Gareth Jones (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See again.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, exactly what I was looking for! Gareth Jones (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mihalis Dafermos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I was browsing the Resource Request page and noticed your request from September, which has gone unanswered. I know it's an old request, but my local library happens to have exactly what you were looking for. If you're still in need of this article, feel free to send me an email (here's a link for your convenience) so that I know where to forward the file. If you no longer need it, sorry to have bothered you. Good day, Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 02:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thanks for getting in touch. I found a cheap second hand copy online a couple of weeks ago and have ordered it. I'm really impressed at your diligence following this up, but on this occasion I won't need your help. I'll mark the request as resolved now. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to hear you've got it taken care of. I've only recently gotten access to a library of such magnitude, so I thought I'd check through there and see if I can help anyone out. Happy editing, Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 19:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the PhD advisers edit on Stephen Wolfram, as I got a call from Stephen's assistant asking me how WP worked. He looks after SWs archive and told me that the facts were wrong. He did tell me me who the actual supervisors had been (though, I'm afraid, I didn't think to note it down). I will forward your source link to him and see if I can get the confusion cleared up. JonMcLoone (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sure. Thanks for such a quick response! Wolfram's timeline suggests the main contributions during his thesis were with Fox and Politzer and what looks like a CV for Fox lists Wolfram as a student. Perhaps the mistake is with Politzer? Thanks for following this up. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Annals of Operations Research, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gareth. The convention is square brackets when there is no volume number in case reports, or specific reference, and round brackets when there is (ie the year also represents where to find the report). Hope this helps! Wikidea 14:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for the explanation! Gareth Jones (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wald's martingale, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martingale (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Wald's marti. ale, when you wrote \text{Exp}, did you mean something different from \exp? Here are how \text{Exp}, \operatorname{Exp}, and \exp get rendered:

${\displaystyle a{\text{Exp}}b\,}$

${\displaystyle a\operatorname {Exp} b\,}$

${\displaystyle a\exp b\,}$

The first two look different from each other on the browser I'm using, but I think that's probably browser-dependent and may also depend on how user preferences are set. I included the a and b to illustrate spacing. The first one lacks spacing between a and Exp and between Exp and b; the third one has proper spacing. The third one is standard if you mean the natural exponential function. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I know this in regular latex, but somehow didn't try it out here. Gareth Jones (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terry Lyons (mathematician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polya Prize (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your first paragraph you wrote

Kemeny’s constant is the mean number of time steps required for a Markov chain to transition from an unknown starting state to an unknown destination state, where both of these unknown states are independently sampled from the stationary distribution.

(except that I added the word "independently"). Then you say it's "constant". "Constant" always means not depending on something, and for a moment I thought it meant not depending on which Markov chain. That would certainly be surprising. But then in the next section, you've got the state j being sampled from the stationary distribution while i is fixed. In that context, it does make sense to say that that time is "constant" in the sense of not depending on i. But in the first paragraph, it looks as if the random choice of i from the stationary distribution is one of the things getting averaged out---you'd just be adding over all possible values of i---so you're getting something that obviously could not depend on anything called i. If, as seems plausible, the statement in the second section is the truth, then the first paragraph needs to get altered accordingly, starting with eliminating the word "both". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you say Kemeny offered a prise, but you don't say if anyone claimed it, nor who proved the conjecture and when. Your first paragraph seems to imply that it was later proved, but the rest leaves me unsure. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....OK, I've done some editing consistent with the remarks above. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, you're quite right that the definition was rather garbled. Your edits have significantly improved that. Gareth Jones (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of your recent edits have included random looking removals of strings in articles: [5][6][7][8]. Will you clean up the errors and check your edits until the problem is fixed? PrimeHunter (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out, I've no idea what could be causing this. I remember very clearly [9] only removing <math> tags, yet other random strings have indeed disappeared. I will endeavour to check my edits carefully. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. Gareth Jones (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the errors. Your reply here [10] also removed a string. It appears all removed strings start with a number. Both numerals and spelled numbers are affected, including substrings of longer words like "one" in done and "ten" in written. Maybe you have a browser extension which tries to process numbers in some way. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! It's Dictionary of Numbers (which I have now disabled). Thanks! Gareth Jones (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bug which the developer tells me has now been speedily resolved. Thanks again for pointing this out PrimeHunter. Gareth Jones (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still happening.[11][12] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I'm rather aware of the irony of that last edit too. Gareth Jones (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hi Gareth, Love the work you've done on the Hammersmith Flyover article, it was a great read. Thanks for the hard work. CiaranMalik (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Gareth Jones (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canonical correlation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAS (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Yitang, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that mathematician Zhang Yitang proposed a proof that there are infinitely many pairs of prime numbers with a prime gap of 70 million or less? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Yitang. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Continuous-time Markov chain may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Catverine. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tau-leaping, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Catverine (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Processor sharing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Round-robin (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a qualm about this edit. "Geometric" is not a person's name; "Erlang" is. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. I did a brief search for "hypererlang" on Google Scholar to confirm it was used in published material, but a little more investigation shows links like this which show up in Google Scholar's results as "Hypererlang approximation of..." in the body text use the form hyper-Erlang. Perhaps you could be so kind as to undo my move? I've reverted the move. Gareth Jones (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Blue field entoptic phenomenon article you replaced the link to a full article by author Akihito Uji by a link to a version which is hidden behind a paywall.(here) Why did you do that? Ceinturion (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceinturion, the link is now using a doi (see Wikipedia:Digital Object Identifier) rather than an explicit URL, but I think they both link to the same place? Click the 'full text' or 'full text (pdf)' links on the right hand side to see the full document at [13]. Gareth Jones (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it looked like a paywall, but it isn't. I will have to get used to these DOIs. Ceinturion (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the site does look a bit like a paywall. Thanks for your careful checking! I think the chief advantage of the doi system is that it should work for longer than any particular URL. Also the citation template is very useful for automatically filling out reference details. Gareth Jones (talk)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Build to order may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Assemble-to-order system]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Matrix-exponential distribution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | support = {{nowrap|''x'' ∈ [0, ∞)}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello there, bad edits were made at Fazlur Khan please fix it. revert it to this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fazlur_Khan&oldid=618259778 180.149.12.219 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gareth Jones. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gareth Jones. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bernard Whiteside is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Whiteside until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Uhooep (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]