User talk:Brianjd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Mind Benders

Hello! I've noticed your past interest in Wikipedia:Mind Benders and wanted to share the following announcement with you! I've taken over the responsibilities of Mind Benders, and the page will now be regularly updated. Right now, the pre-round is open (it's more of a creative artistic competition), and round one will open soon (the questions are done, we just need to wait for the pre-round to begin/finish)! So why not check it out? I'll keep you updated! Thanks, Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to pass this news on to other Wikipedians.

Red links

red links? where specifically are you talking about? Jtkiefer 19:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

oh, those red links, figured it looked better with the red links than it did when I only had one archive listed, though I'm still tweaking the layout to make it look better. Jtkiefer -- T | C | E ----- 04:39, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

putting this in the right place

It is not your place to criticise my edits and it isn't your place to answer for Vinnie. --cheese-cube 09:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:MIND

Hello. Round four of Wikipedia Mind Benders will open on Thursday, December 1. This round will be drastically different from round three; part one will consist of a creative project, and part two will be developed from there. The full details will be released when the round opens. Time and speed should not be major factors in this round; thus, there is no exact opening time for the round as speed will not factor into the scoring. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please add Wikipedia:Mind Benders/to do to your watchlist to receive further announcements; the NotificationBot is currently down and all notifications will be placed on that page. Sorry for any inconvenience.

Note: This message has been sent by Flcelloguy. If you do not wish to receive further messages regarding WP:MIND, please contact Flcelloguy. Special thanks to Fetofs for helping distribute this message.

Missing you Brian

Hey brian, I know you're busy with uni business, but I really miss playing minesweeper with you, since there's no one else out there to play against. I hope you'll be back soon, I really want to talk to you on msn. night night Darkroom Danny 10:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still checking my e-mail, so you can send non-Wikipedia-related messages there. I'm posting this here because I can't remember your e-mail address and you haven't set it in Wikipedia. Brian Jason Drake 02:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've set my email now, all thanks to you Brian McBride aka Jase! I still miss ya Darkroom Danny 06:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It still says you either haven't set a valid address or have chosen to receive e-mail. I'm going to be on now for about 4 hr 20 min. Brian Jason Drake 09:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay Brian, I just checked my inbox and have confirmed my personal email address for AMsisscorsister, and so the email that I have will work! Darkroom Danny 10:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit counter

Thanks for your comment. You'll notice that the edit counter says it is no longer being updated (look in the text at top of page). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Avian flu

I'm not really remotely knowledgable about the topic, I just thought the purple box was probably out of place. Anyway, I have nothing to do with the article, if you want to discuss it, please do so at User talk:WAS 4.250 or Talk:Avian flu. --Interiot 03:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mass-to-charge ratio

I respectfully disagree with your claim that mass-to-charge is not part of mass spectrometry given that it is almost the very essence of the field; however, I am happy to let it stand since there is differentition to mass spectrum and mass spectrometry where use within this field is defined and the article you edited has some major problems. Since you are interested in this article from a physics perspective I would like to point out to you the use of the unit Th thomson. If it is a physics article and not a mass spectrometry article, it is up to you to decide if this is appropriate in this context. In my opinion, as a mass spectrometrist with a strong physics background in electrodynamics I think that it is entirely inappropriate and misleading to the uninformed reader. The unit thomson is not accepted by IUPAP, IUPAC or any governing body. It is only used by a very few scientists and only within the context of mass spectrometry. Are you familiar with it? Do you think it is common? Have you come across it in the physics literature? Just making you aware of a gross misrepresentation since you are veheminantly taking ownership of this article.--Nick Y. 17:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Information Technology

I took it out of the top level of the technology category because the top level was crowded at the time. The other categories still kept it in the technology category, just further down the tree. I just added it to Category:Types of technology. Maurreen 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomson (unit)

Just to let you know the reference that was supplied to you is grossly misinterpreted in the article. I would even say twisted. I have posted the relevant part of the letter to the editor that is the reference used on the talk page.--Nick Y. 22:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics Article WIP proposal

Hello, as an editor who has previously added to the Physics article and taken part in discussions on its talk page I thought a current proposal may be of interest to you. Over the past few months the article has suffered from a lack of focus and direction. Unfortunately the article is now judged by a number of editors to be in a relatively poor state. There is currently a proposal to start a full consensus based review of the article. That review and consensus process has been proposed here, your thoughts on the proposal and participation in the WIP review of the article would be much appreciated. It disappoints me that an article on one of the fundamental sciences here at wikipedia is in such a relatively poor state, and I hope you can have a browse by the page to offer your views and hopefully participate. Thanks, SFC9394 22:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5