User talk:Qcomp

Hello. I wanted to thank you again for helping with improving the Timeline of quantum computing article. I know some editors have "pings" turned off, so I just wanted to bring this related request for the quantum computing article to your attention. You'll see I've requested to update the parent article with your preferred wording and sources. Do you have any interest in updating the quantum computing article as well? Either way, thanks for your previous assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jason, I was busy away from WP. I'll have a look at the other article.--Qcomp (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've replied again on the article's talk page. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qcomp, Thank you for your edits on Quantum Computing. Please break them up into smaller edits. Also please do not just put information into sentences as it creates run-on sentences.

Thanks! Lwoodyiii (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hello @Lwoodyiii:, I'm not sure I understand you're comment. Do you think the changes are fine and should simply be made one at a time or do you think they are not an improvement and hence reverted them? If it is the latter, please comment here or on Talk:Quantum computing, what you object to (since I, of course, like my changes ;-) thanks. --(talk) 14:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Qcomp , I think your changes are great, especially on the probability of measurement. In fact, I'm reading the paper you referenced on NISQ right now! :) I made a few grammatical edits.... Thanks again for your expertise! Lwoodyiii (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, good, thanks for your improvements, have fun with Preskill's paper, everything by him is worth reading ;-) --Qcomp (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say you do GREAT WORK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8D:700:1D2A:CCF:7DF3:8794:DD7F (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Verstraete, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FWO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made your first edit to the Julian Assange article today. What prompted you to work on that article. Did you receive any communication from another editor about it? This is a straight information request, please do not take it for any more than that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SPECIFICO:, I have the article on my watchlist since I'm interested in the subject and I have followed the recent discussion about different changes. I don't think I've edited the article, but regarding the "asylum" issue I have an opinion and had the time to express it on the Talk page. I've not "communicated" with any editor on the matter (apart from reading the Talk page and this discussion here), and I've never before been queried about my communications in Wikipedia. --Qcomp (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While I understand why you've reverted this edit, the current lead sentence is clunky. I kept "Indian-born" cuz there's consensus that it's relevant to Rushdie's notability (I initially opposed its use but later changed my mind). Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thedarkknightli:, thanks for getting back to me; I reverted, since in my view dropping the nationality is not an improvement (and the comment just said "better" ;-). I now see that there was a lengthy discussion about this (which I wasn't aware of), but at first glance it doesn't seem to me that a clear consensus was reached. If you think it has, then maybe make a corresponding comment in the discussion and announce that you want to make the change.

My preference -given that Rushdie has British and American citizenships (but no longer the Indian) and that his Indian origin is important- would be the current formulation. It is clunky (a bit), but it provides the non-controversial and expected information. On could also write "indian-british-american" (as one does not necessarily distinguish between current and former nationalities, e.g. Nikola Tesla is said to be "serbian-american" but that's equally clunky and less informative). I see that Albert Einstein even handles this issue the way you propose, avoiding the nationality in the introductory sentence ("German-born").

My preference is not very strong, so if there's a rough consensus among editors to discard the nationality in Rushdie's case, I will not oppose. --Qcomp (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qcomp. Thank you for your work on Seigo Tarucha. Another editor, Ldm1954, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

the page needs independent sources for his appointments, his own CV is not enough.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ldm1954}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954:; thank you; I've replied on the talk page of the article. --15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Qcomp (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grover's algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Query complexity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]