This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
His edits were made in violation of his probation and I reverted solely on that. They could have been all edits that said "I Like Penguins", and since there were more than 25 and not proposed or approved, I would have reverted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 13:49
Hi Carl. Can I prevail on you to take a position on the question I raised just now concerning the second sentence of the article on lines at the bottom of that article's talk page? If you agree with Tango I won't argue the point further. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 07:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The non-standard analysis page already has an interesting section on criticisms (mostly on Connes). Could this be added to Bishop-Keisler controversya.k.a. Criticisms of non-standard analysis? I don't mean for the non-standard analysis page to be shortened, rather for the AfD page to be expanded. It seems there is a sentiment at the AfD page that there does appear to be a sufficient amount of material here, and a number of secondary sources remain unexplored. Katzmik ( talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I need help. My account is blocked, and I can not even edit my own talk page.
Ever since I created the articles on Sarah Palin's churches and pastors, people have been trying to have me blocked. They have deleted my edits, citing "unreliable sources". Examples of the "unreliable sources are CBS News and Times of London, and the content of these sources were deleted.
I was accused of canvassing, but it was a person I never contacted, so that accusation was changed. Then I was accused of sockpuppetry, that I was pretending to be someone else (Witchieanna). The entire contents of my computer was wiped out at exactly the same time as I was blocked for editing for sockpuppetry (I have receipts for trying to recover my data, etc., which failed). I was told that this was impossible to be connected to Wikipedia, and was just a coincidence , since I never gave my email address. But I had my email enabled, so that was not true, either. When witchieanna, who was supposedly my meatpuppet, threatened some legal action, and I agreed not to fight a subpoena and not to lie under oath, and I wrote to the person who was doing all of this to me that I would help and see them in the court that they were getting me dragged into. Then the sockpuppetry thing was blocked, since it was discovered that I was not witchieanna. Then I was accused of making legal threats, because I agreed to help by not fighting a subpoena and by not lying under oath. I was blocked for this being a legal threat. After it became clear that I was not making a legal threat, but was asking to be kept out of whatever was going on, I was accused of being a meatpuppet of Anna, and blocked again. When my contribution history was looked at, the reason for the indefinite block was changed to "Obvious puppetry of some kind", and my talk page was blocked so I could not even respond to what was said about me. Anna's pages were blocked so she could not respond either.
How do I find an admin who will respond, and explain why I am "obviously" involved in "puppetry of some kind". I am now being told that I am involved in "puppetry" because I sometimes go to the same internet cafe as anna, and because I know her. Is there a reasonable admin who can stop all of this from happening to me, and leave me out of whatever legal stuff is going on, which I have no direct knowledge of, and do not want to be a part of?
This whole thing started when I tried to write information about Sarah Palin's pastors and churches, using CBS and Times of London as sources, and the content was deleted on the grounds that they were not reliable sources. Jclemens even changed the link from the Times of London from its news page to its blog page to misleadingly "argue" that it was not a reliable source. I am baffled by the complexity, pettiness, and what would best be called fraud in order to censor information, if it was outside Wikipedia. Changing links to mislead in arguing to delete info on TImes of London is close to fraud and deceipt. And when I tried to get help, I was accused of being a meatpuppet.
I am not a meatpuppet, and I do not control or have any influence over any editors, or their actions.
What can I do?
User:Tautologist 76.167.114.126 ( talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Feel free to ignore this if you have better things to do. Katzmik asked me to talk to an admin before removing any of his changes. There have been enough reverts that it makes sense to try to sort things out before reverting. We currently make claims about what is, or is not an internal set and using Lightstone's article as the reference, which was published before the work defining internal sets. If you could comment on the talk page, it would be appreciated. I think that Katzmik (well he basically said) his edits are sanctioned by an administrator (I think he meant you, but I am unsure). Thanks for your time Thenub314 ( talk) 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be back so soon. Katzmik recently reverted my edits at this page under the suggestion that his version is agreed on by you. You hadn't explicitly said this, you simply edited the section after him, so I was wondering if you'd care to comment at the talk page (not as an admin but as an editor.)
Thanks Thenub314 ( talk) 16:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carl, user mathsci has unilaterally moved Criticism of nonstandard analysis to a title of his liking. Please restore some order as per AfD discussion. Katzmik ( talk) 08:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Note that he is already busy editing the article in accordance with the new title. Katzmik ( talk) 08:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I will also leave a message on Geometry Guy's page since you are traveling, but Peer Review Bot did not run today and ran at an odd time the last time it did run. I can do the SAPRs and archive by hand if need be, but hopefully the bot can be fixed / turned back on. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
<font=3> Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
---|
Hi CBM, I was wondering if it would be possible for VeblenBot to generate a table similar to PERtable for semi-protected edit requests? Thanks for your time and happy holidays! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot ( talk · contribs) has a compromised password, I have blocked the bot and changed the password to prevent a vandal from stealing the account. I am emailing you the temporary password. MBisanz talk 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Happy New Year - just wanted to let you know PeerReviewBot did not do the archiving or SAPR links today. Hope you are enjoying your travels and sorry to bother you, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update - will the bot now run about the time it ran most recently (1 UTC) or will it go back to about 10 UTC? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you make something like User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics? I recall asking you this about the table for the Economics WikiProject last year ( here and here) and I was wondering if you could do the same for the Video Games WikiProject. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate all the work on version 1.0 and the bots. Have a simple query: On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot you describe hitcounts as being daily page views but the ones here toolserver selected score v1.0 are massively high compared to grok, even taking into account the truncating. e.g. US is 1.4 million on the selected score and only 40,000 on grok. Are you sure you didn't mean monthly page views or have i missed something? Appreciate an answer when you get a chance, as it gives me even more motivation to improve arcticles if there are more people hitting the pages than I previously thought. thanks, Tom B ( talk) 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [1]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 05:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Any idea when this might get off the ground? Happy‑ melon 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Peer Review Bot said there were no SAPRs to link just now, but I did them about 5 hours ago - see diff. Not sure what the problem is, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does VeblenBot still check the size of WP:PR and WP:pr/d? I checked at random and the second was less than 1 KB from exceeding the limit, so I did the partial transclusion trick and got things back to a more manageable size. Just curious as there was no warning on the PR talk page, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A while back you adjusted the IUPAC name at Hyodeoxycholic acid. There's a discussion now going on about making such changes in this WP:CHEM thread. No other registered user seems to have word wrapping problems. Perhaps you could let us know what browser you are using? Thanks, Xasodfuih ( talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Carl, I got roughed up well in this discussion. I left some comments about sense and nonsense of searchability on Beetstra's page. Please take a look as a mathematician. What do you think? (my most recent points about lexical/grammatical properties, parsers, canonical forms etc and the sense and nonsense of such restrictions for what I believe is mostly associative search algorithms in ordinary search engines and a pre-parsed representation in chem engines anyway) Most important: is it a wild goose chase? If you are interested in gruesome humor you can read my other rants there too. 70.137.173.82 ( talk) 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
At least SOMETHING moved, after the witch sabbath. 70.137.173.82 ( talk) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent to the VPT seems to have screwed up the dates a bit. Perchance related to User:CBM/dates.js ? -- Splarka ( rant) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi CBM,
I'm the original author of {{ val}} and many of the sub-templates it uses. Somebody recently reported a bug in {{ Val/delimitnum/real}} (See Template_talk:Val/delimitnum/real) and I have a fix that I'd like to apply. Unfortunately, the page is protected, so I no longer have access to {{ val}} or any of the sub-templates. I noticed that you had applied the protection. Would you either apply the fix in the template talk page for me or, preferably, grant me write access to {{ val}} and its sub-templates so I can continue to improve the template where needed without having to ask permission?
Thanks!
I'm not protesting the fact that it is protected. Because I have done most of the work on these templates, I feel I am in a unique position to improve them and I want to continue working on them where needed. It would be nice if I had direct access to them: having to ask permission is annoying, counter productive and discouraging. I haven't got as much time to edit Wikipedia and I'd like to spent as much of it as possible adding value to it, rather than having to ask if somebody could do so on my behalf, if you understand what I mean.
Hi Carl, Peer Review Bot ran today but did not link the SAPRs for some reason. On Feb 1 it linked the last reviews from January, but there were none from February to link. I forgot to run the script on Feb 2, but did run it earlier today (Feb 3) - see diff.
Also, is VeblenBot still checking the size of wp:pr/d? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like the halting problem article to be as clear as possible. What aspect of the present wording do you find confusing? I'm sure that some better wording can be found, it's just difficult because that particular sentence is too brief to be an actually "formal" statement. Maybe some more radical copyediting is needed. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither the WP:CHICAGO nor WP:ILLINOIS stats have run this month.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Carl, I appreciate your presence as a voice of sanity on the ID images issue. There's a typo in your post here which may prevent it from being as useful as it could be. Perhaps you'd like to correct it. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there currently a way I can generate a "frequently viewed" list of pages for dermatology tagged articles, similar to what has been done at the mathematics project (see here and here). I started WP:DERM and am looking to get more stats/info regarding our pages. Thanks in advance. kilbad ( talk) 00:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the words " In the study of real analysis" succeed in telling the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. I've edited it accordingly. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has made several edits to pages owned by User:VeblenBot. If they are malicious, you might want to revert them. His pattern of editing is rather odd, I'm not sure whether he is a vandal or just an experienced editor using a new account for some reason. Brianyoumans ( talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[2] It describes an unusual notion of decidability. Thanks. 76.195.10.34 ( talk) 09:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to be an A class review regular, how about taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation? There another one on the Four color theorem (for possible removal). The nominator there seems satisfied with the recent changes, so it's not as pressing to look at it, but of course if you have the time, a look there would be appreciated too. -- C S ( talk) 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have copied the style of your signature because I quite liked it. Hope you don't mind.
Another thing. I would be interested in helping with the development of the new bot if there's anything I could help with. I don't have a lot of programming experience but would be willing to learn, and I'm fairly good with templates now. Regards, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have access to JSTOR. What is your policy in retrieving articles for people such as myself who do not have easy access to JSTOR. I could go to my alma mater or the local community college, but neither of those are convenient, as you can imagine. -- Avi ( talk) 03:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for the copy-editing. The reason for the scriptstyles was that when the TeX is in-line, and some elements in a sentence have decorations and others do not, it becomes a mix of text and display styles. To wit:
"In other words, if there exists a that maximizes , then is the maximum spacing estimator of ."
I made them all match the smaller text styles for æsthetic reasons. You think the mixed-size way is better? Thanks -- Avi ( talk) 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
But that goes against our MoS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Typesetting of mathematical formulas where it says:
Having LaTeX-based formulas in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, for the following reasons.
- The font size is larger than that of the surrounding text on some browsers, making text containing in-line formulas hard to read.
- Misalignment can result. For example, instead of ex, with "e" at the same level as the surrounding text and the x in superscript, one may see the e lowered to put the vertical center of the whole "ex" at the same level as the center of the surrounding text.
- The download speed of a page is negatively affected if it contains many images.
- HTML (as described below) is adequate for most simple in-line formulas and better for text-only browsers.
If an in-line formula needs to be typeset in LaTeX, often better formatting can be achieved with the
\textstyle
or\scriptstyle
LaTeX commands. By default, LaTeX code is rendered as if it were a displayed equation (not in-line), and this can frequently be too big. For example, the formula<math>\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2 = \pi^2/6 </math>
, which displays as , is too large to be used in-line.\textstyle
generates a smaller summation sign and moves the limits on the sum to the right side of the summation sign. This code for this is<math>\textstyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2 = \pi^2/6<math>
, and it renders as the much more aesthetic . However, the default font for\textstyle
is larger than the surrounding text on many browsers.\scriptstyle
makes the rendering even more compact by using a smaller font (it is the font used for subscripts and superscripts in ordinary displayed equations). The code<math>\scriptstyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2 = \pi^2/6</math>
generates the even smaller , which should be approximately the same size as the surrounding text on many browsers. A drawback is that\scriptstyle
is often ugly for expressions where a superscript or subscript appears in a superscript or subscript: The doubly-scripted characters will render at the same size as the singly-scripted characters, which is inevitably too large. Compare , created with<math>\scriptstyle 2^{n_i}</math>
, with , created with<math>\textstyle 2^{n_i}</math>
If you plan on editing LaTeX formulas, it is helpful if you leave your preference settings (link in the upper right corner of this page, underneath your user name) in the "rendering math" section at the default "HTML if very simple or else PNG"; that way, you'll see the page like most users will see it.
-- Avi ( talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is how it looks on my browser: [4]. Much more readable. -- Avi ( talk) 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Are your preferences set as per the MoS suggests? -- Avi ( talk) 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I found that the comparitive size between the inline HTML and the rendered PNG is most similar using scriptstyle, and on a monitor of at least 1024x768 it was readable. Do you still feel strongly enough to mind if I restore the script tags? Do you feel that perhaps this is something the larger WP:Math community should weigh in upon? Thanks for your advice and corrections! -- Avi ( talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for more input here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Using scriptstyle to make in-line symbols "fit". If I have misstated or misrepresented anything, please correct me. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
"Clearly a political move"—I believe you are right that it's not appropriate to say this. If you want to monitor the situation and remind all parties to cool it, if necessary, I'd be very pleased. The key flashpoints are WT:LINKING, WT:BTW, User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC. The dispute doesn't seem to be getting any easier, and if anything has been worsened by the long, directionless ArbCom hearing. We are still unsure even what the scope of the hearing is, and the clerk's attempt to organise a series of RfCs is going to require a lot of luck if it doesn't implode. Tony (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Carl. I just finished updating the {{ WikiProject Cape Verde}} template to use the {{ WPBannerMeta}} template, and I activated one of its available hooks, the importance/quality intersections one. Then I went looking and found this discussion from June/July 2008, where you wrote that you'd update the WP 1.0 bot code to enable linking to those intersections from the statistics tables. Was it done? Is it necessary to select an option somewhere to activate the feature, if it was implemented? Alternatively, I see that the example in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chennai/Assessment/Statistics has been updated regularly by Erwin85bot. If case the feature isn't yet available on WP 1.0 bot, should I ask Erwin to run WP Cape Verde's stats instead? Thanks, Waldir talk 13:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't doubt that you may be ultimately right in removing the image, but... in your summary you say,
Wikipedia policy does not permit the use of non-free images such as this on articles such as this
"Such as this" is not very descriptive in either the case of the image or the article. I did think the image was appropriate (or I wouldn't have added it), and did include a fair-use rationale, so I've obviously missed a policy nuance (or blatancy) here that your summary is not specific enough to clear up. Can you clarify which policy is being violated? This will help me avoid making the same mistake in the future.
Thanks, NapoliRoma ( talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have two questions about peer review bot.
Thanks as always for all you do - the second thing is not urgent and the first may be my fault, but thought you should know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have copied the style of your signature because I quite liked it. Hope you don't mind.
Another thing. I would be interested in helping with the development of the new bot if there's anything I could help with. I don't have a lot of programming experience but would be willing to learn, and I'm fairly good with templates now. Regards, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
One thing you could do is to figure out what is the status of the proposal to split GA/FA apart from the A/B/C/Start/Stub ratings. If this is going to happen, we need to figure out how to implement the rollover, which would coincide with the new version of the WP 1.0 bot. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, is there any chance you could get VeblenBot to run on Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests as well? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi CBM. A long time ago you asked me a question, User_talk:Henrik#Bulk_queries_against_stats.grok.se. I have now finally replied. :) Cheers, henrik• talk 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This article [6] attributes an unusual concept of decidability to Tarski. Is it interesting? I'm thinking of linking it to the article about decidability and/or some related article. But it comes across as bogus to me. Thanks. 75.62.6.87 ( talk) 10:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Concerning the table at
User:VeblenBot/PERtable: It's a useful table, but I currently don't keep it watchlisted due to the timestamp edit noise every half hour. If the bot would only edit when there are actual changes to the category then I'd find it much more helpful, would keep it watchlisted, and requests would get a more timely response at least from me.
Could you consider throwing the timestamp out?
Cheers,
Amalthea
02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you around on the Wiki as someone who seems interested in the statistical trends. I've started a WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends to help catalog the various types of user research that have been created. If you would like to sign up and help fill in our files, it would be most appreciated. MBisanz talk 05:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of ways of improving zeteo, so I'm wondering whether a wiki can be configured in a way that it is actually more like a (rigid) database, so I want to have several intertwined tables, such that users can edit the database items but not the database structure. Do you, by chance, know whether this is possible or have any other ideas about that? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Your WP 1.0 bot is adding categories that are already covered automatically by {{ cat class}}, as seen on this edit. The bot adding them does not seem helpful to me and potentially a problem long-term, since the redundant category is now hardcoded and can't be changed with a template update. (Someone else reported this at User talk:WP 1.0 bot#Adding Categories but it hasn't been answered.) Hope that helps. — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Sentential logic, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be very interested in your opinion, and I just realised that you created the category, so you should have been asked anyway. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to make the proposals page easier to read, edit and archive, and after a discussion here we decided it may be a good idea to make a system like that at Peer review. I just wondered if you could help by creating some sort of code to make this work, so instead of showing the whole proposal, it could just be a subpage that is transcluded into the main page in different sections, such as Art, Sport etc. and also in order of the time that they were created. Can you help? DeMoN2009 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I forgot to do the Semi-automated peer reviews two days in a row (sorry). My concern is that with the new month, the March SAPRs might be a problem now (not sure if the bot checks every time for PRs from the previous month or not). I ran all of the SAPRs as AZPR just now. Thanks and sorry for the bother, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you write the following part?
″“For some natural number n, where n is greater than 2, n is not the sum of two primes. Goldbach's conjecture is that this statement is false, that is, that every natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.″
In its present form the statement is just a correct statement. 11 is not the sum of two primes. Maybe you want to change the example again. Chris Barista ( talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The FAC page name format has changed now; they are appended with /archiveX, where X is a number, whether they are active FACs or not. So, the page is now full of red links; could you please scrape the page names from each FAC article's talk page so that the links work? Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2035141 out of 2048000 bytes (12859 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been away from WP for a while, but I believe the process for FAC has changed a bit, thus rendering WP:FACL full of red links. I think by default, new nominations now reside at /archiveX (for example, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Cypriots/archive1). Can Veblenbot be updated to accommodate this change? Thanks! Budding Journalist 21:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
The Yuremamine article seems to be locked. How is it possible to do some minor editing? I just left a comment on the discussion page. Two commercial sites have been added to the reference list, and they are not relevant. Also, the first paragraph needs re-editing; e.g. decoctions and other preparations of this plant are not called, "ayahuasca".
Also, I am not so fluent in this particular problem, and I am not even sure how I can receive your response.
Advance thanks! Jace1 ( talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Carl. Perhaps I did not scroll down far enough to see the text body. In any event, this seems to be working for me now. I'll try to pay closer attention in the future. Jace1 ( talk) 08:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the bot is working on this. I appears that recent additions are not being put in the list. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Peer Review Bot archived an article here as no recent comments but it was too new. I undid the edit. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sure I am going about this the wrong way, but I see some problems in the Smiley face murders article. There is an anonymous IP reverting unsourced information without regard to guidelines. While there are sources attached, they do not mention the subject included (Mike Flaherty). The only source mentioned Mike Flaherty is an unreliable source. I do not know where else to turn when it seems that the other editor is avoiding discussion and doing whatever he/she feels. I want to avoid edit warring. What is my next step? Angryapathy ( talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Angryapathy ( talk) 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have merged elementarily equivalent, elementary embedding and Tarski–Vaught test into elementary substructure to get a decent-sized article. I would like to rename the resulting article to elementary equivalence, but unfortunately this already exists as a redirect to elementarily equivalent (no other history). Could you do the move for me when you are back? Thanks. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask you for another move? I would like to move Boolean algebra (structure) to Boolean lattice per BRD, edit summary "move to synonym that doesn't need disambiguation; better reflects current article contents". Unfortunately the existing redirect has a formally non-trivial edit history. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The recent change to the FAC procedure (/archivex subpages) has left lots of redlinks on the update page. Is this something that's easily remediable? All the best, Steve T • C 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, there has been a second premature archiving error here as Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season has only been at PR a few days. I put this on the bot's page too - do you want such notices here in the future too? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you respond to this note? Regards— G716 < T· C> 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi-how do we get the category names updated to the current ones? Thanks, -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 04:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced#Proposal to change wording. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to request for unprotect Template:Fb team template. I am working now on new template which will display teams locations on map User:Verwolff/football/Fb_map. I cannot finish until I am not able to put new variables into Fb team template. Hopefully you can unprotect this template for me. Regards.-- Verwolff ( talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I mean no offence, but it's been a while since I've been on wikipedia, and I just found that the Epic of Roy was deleted. It has your name on the deletion log, so i'm asking you, why? -- Tiddlydum ( talk)
A quick question, is "(x = 1)" a legitimate predicate in first order formal arithmetical languages? or is there a need to include a quantifier for some reason, such as "∃y(x = y) & (y = 1)"
i am trying to edit some stuff about Boolos's short proof of godel's theorem and i see the following in in Boolo's original paper
∃y (y = (10Xk) & A (x, y))
why can't he just write A(x,(10xk)) as a predicate? Is it merely a matter of style? or am i missing something? Philosophy.dude ( talk) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
"x is the least number not named by any formula containing less than fewer than 10k syllables."
And A (x, y) says (again in boolos' exact words
"x is the least formula not named by a formula of few than y symbols."
In his argument there are no replacement operations or anything like substitutions going on... (so it's not like the actual string "y = 10 x k" need to be present in the formula...
I think i understand boolos's argument in general but this is one subtitle thing i don't get.... it seems to have bearing on the truth value of things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks :)
74.77.21.249 (
talk)
15:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
When you have a chance, the red-linked categories at User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS need to be redirected to the current category names. Thanks -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have a request and a question for you. I forgot to run the semi-automated peer reviews two nights in a row (I just did them but PeerReviewBot beat me by 7 minutes). There are 12 PRs without a linked SAPR, so would you please run the bot manually? I can do them by hand if you'd prefer.
The question would be a lot more work for you - I help out at DYK from time to time. There used to be a DYK update bot that was very helpful, but has not run for some time (it even had admin rights to update the Main Page). I know another user was working on a second bot, but that also seems not to have panned out. Your bots function so smoothly that I was wondering if you had the time and interest to write (or modify the existing script(s)) for a new DYK bot.
The tasks are to:
There are already a series of templates for the hooks that standardize the author and nominator and article information. In the past two parameters have been adjustable by admins - the next queue to be used for an update (there are 6 queues, normally they go in order, but if there is a problem with a hook a queue might be skipped on occasion) and the time interval for the next update) this is usually six hours, but if there is a big backlog it may be adjusted to a shorter interval.
If you are too busy or have no interest I understand, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask. I am not 100% sure I have mentioned all of the tasks / issues a bot would face, but I am pretty sure I have.
Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Boolos Burgess & Jeffry 2002:58 states "A first process is composition, also called substitution . . .", Enderton 2001 sends the reader to different places in the book for the different words (and I don't have the patience to wade through it, but he seems to be using substitution wrt logic and composition wrt functions), and Kleene 1952 does not use the word composition (only substitution, ditto for Goedel) nor does Sipser 2006. I looked up "substitution" here at wiki but didn't see it disambiguated re functions. What's going on? Thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was out on a bike ride and a random thought occurred: that all strings of written symbols e.g. mathematical equations, really require the use of "substitution" to change one string into another -- the operation of "string substitution" as in your example above. To trace the origin of the use of the word I did a bit more research: Minksy 1967:173 in a footnote states that "Composition is the operation of substituting function names for variables in other function names. A more formal treatment of this is in Kleene [1952] . . .". But as noted above, Kleene doesn't use the word (I double-checked). So I go to my trusty dictionary: "compose" comes from L. componere = com with, together, jointly + ponere to put. (This sounds more like "concatenate" than "substitute".) "Composite function" appears in Suppes 1960 (Axiomatic Set Theory), in Halmos 1960 (Naive Set Theory), in Saracino 1980 (Abstract Algebra: A First Course), but not in Reichenbach 1947 (Elements of Symbolic Logic). From this little survey I surmise that the use of "composition" came from the "incursion" of set theory into algebra (abstract and otherwise) during the 1950's. My point? I am uncomfortable with the composition (mathematics) article and the fact that substitution (mathematics), which is a perfectly good usage of the word and has historical significance, is not discussed anywhere . . . and the student leaves confused. Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
VeblenBot seems to have fallen asleep! Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Veblen writes File Talk instead of File on User:VeblenBot/PERtable. ( Old revision of User:VeblenBot/PERtable.) Also could &redirect=no be added to the link to the request; it would save a click in the case that the talk page is redirected, which happens fairly often. Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
When you get a chance... By the way, awesome job on the table in the first place. I hadn't realized it was only added in March. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not able to understand the reason for this change.-- GDibyendu ( talk) 05:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen that you have edited something in " Turing machine", and that you are inside "Portal:Mathematics". I've seen that
" Turing machine" belongs to Portal:Mathematics (and I think it's ok), but " Entscheidungsproblem" (that starts with "In mathematics, the Entscheidungsproblem...") "belongs" only to Portal:Philosophy and while I don't know if it's really related to Philosophy (or if it's an error), I'm pretty sure that it should be also into "Portal:Mathematics" and also, probably, some content of the page "Turing machine" -> Entscheidungsproblem can/should be moved in the main page " Entscheidungsproblem".
[and -yes I'm an italian- so *probably* sorry for some error in my English!]
Thanks, Ad88110 ( talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
i am not sure if i register account name ‘georgezhao’ before, i want to Manage my global account, but find this user name 'georgezhao' used different password, i cannot remember which one to use. i faided to merge my english account and chinese account. could you please help me to figure out why?
it seems no people is using this account‘georgezhao’ , please help me to change my user-name 'gzhao' to georgezhao? thank you very much。 66.7.131.199 ( talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gamma boron discovery controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic?. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead of leaving them as red links, could the dates please link to the article itself, so that the links are still clickable and useful? Gary King ( talk) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
See WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic?. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead of leaving them as red links, could the dates please link to the article itself, so that the links are still clickable and useful? Gary King ( talk) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, thanks to your good work to make VeblenBot's category listing so easy to use, we haven't been in touch for a while, which has saved many communications, although in some ways has been a pity, as I have always enjoyed working with you to make Wikipedia easier for others to contribute. Anyway, I've noticed on several occasions (such as GAR categories, and most recently at Category:Good articles in need of review) that VeblenBot can get stuck when categories are empty. Can you remedy this? Please let me know if further details would be helpful. Geometry guy 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Frequently viewed which you created. Is it possible to have something like that created for WP:GERMANY? Agathoclea ( talk) 10:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As reported on Oleg's talk, Special:Contributions/WP 1.0 bot shows nothing after 09:54 UTC, and the bot died halfway through its run through WP:GERMANY... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 10:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, thanks for updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Frequently viewed/List and persuading Veblenbot to update the {{ maths rating}}s accordingly. One question: I'd assumed the numbers at the end of each entry in the List are the hitcounts for the whole of the period January 2009 through April 2009, but they appear to be far too small — e.g. stats.grok.se reports 380439 hits for Standard deviation in April 2009 alone, while the updated List has "2. Standard deviation 25784". That's also much smaller than the figure of 538269 given in the previous version of the List for Feb 1, 2008 to Feb 23, 2008. Are the new figures divided by 100 or something? Regards, Qwfp ( talk) 11:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this bot edit has not done what was intended. The talk page had been blanked, so it has some excuse. This is just to let you know. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there are too many false positives from the import of old UseModWiki edits. Maybe a query like "if the rev date is Jan. 2003 but the rev ID is way above expected for that time" would get most of the edits I want, since the server clocks often seemed to reset in January 2003. Graham 87 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
PeerReviewBot has not yet run today - not sure if you knew. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you know how to do this? (I found this and then posted it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I have no idea how it was created).
Please rebuild it.
(Or explain to the rest of us how, so one of us can do it).
The Transhumanist 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
.allpagesredirect { display:none; }
in your css will hide the redirects, though you'll have to skip past the subpages yourself. —
Cryptic
18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)I put a list at http://toolserver.org/~cbm/data/wikipedia.base.txt . Do with it what you will. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
CBM, please see this posting. Do you understand where these came from?!! Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Finally had a look at those navboxes as I think you noticed. I think they're looking good now, with the exception of the alphabetical index. This one is really difficult to use I think. I'm not sure how you decided to organise those pages - perhaps you've tried to get an equal number of entries on each page or something like that? I think it would be better with a separate page for each letter (or group of letters). — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I added four semi-automated peer reviews here but when the bot ran later it found nothing to link diff. It also did not archive anything, although that happens occasionally. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. WP 1.0 bot ( talk · contribs) seems to be malfunctioning. It lists all tagged pages as newly added. (See here.) Regards, Good raise 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, there is a proposal to rename peer review at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Renaming_.22peer_review.22_to_.22internal_review.22. My question is, would this be technically problematic with Veblenbot and Peer Review Bot? Or do you see any other problems or technical issues with a possible renaming? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you created {{ Citizendium}}, I thought you might be interested in the proposed WikiProject Citizendium Porting. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.
Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see my question over here. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. How/where do you query the database? Ha! ( talk)
A few years ago, you chimed in on Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks regarding the exclusion of the victim's name as part of the article. This topic has come up again over at Talk:Incidents at Disney parks. Feel free to join in, if you could. SpikeJones ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
VeblenBot has suddenly started auto-listing subcategories as well as pages in categories, as shown in this diff. Maybe there has been a mediawiki or toolserver change. Is there a workaround? Thanks, Geometry guy 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been informed that I appeared on your poll. I ask that you review the conversation at the bottom of this archived page] and then the discussion of my unfortunate block on the blocking admin's page. Other than that one incident, I have never been blocked for incivility... real or presumed... and I am uncomfortable with the erroneous impression my being on your list might give to editors not familiar with the circumstances of the block and its speedy removal. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I simply made a list of blocks that met the criteria listed in the query. There is no presumption they are correct, and moreover the purpose of the list is to allow people to look through them to see whether they are correct. Once the overall civility poll is closed, I have no objections to the page being blanked. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Carl,
I have been working on a proposal for organizing articles about "ideas" based on the observation that they can inevitably be identified as either "concepts" or "theories." I had been working on a lot of belief systems, "-isms," "-ologies," and even some "-sis"es, putting them into "theory" categories and I observed that it helped immensely to diffuse many general categories. I was often left with articles about single "concepts." I have been putting some ideas at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I think at some point you had proposed to make a "basic concepts in logic" (or math) category. I think this type of approach will help to make it possible to streamline other categories in the future. The whole thing is an ontological approach to categories.
I am no longer interested in keeping whole second paragraph at set (mathematics). I think the important thing is to ontologically identify it somewhere, and that is adequately achieved in the first paragraph with a wikilink to concept. The whole abstract object issue is sufficiently dealt with over in articles like idea, concept, and mental representation. I would like to create a category for all the fundamental concepts of mathematics as described at U:Gb/C&T, perhaps "mathematical objects." This is intended to be very limited to single concepts like "set." I had proposed to move category "abstract objects" to "concepts" because of your legitimate concerns but there was no consensus.
I also would like to know what you think about Category:Theories of deduction. There are a bunch of other potential members, but ones like "model theory" are different than ones like "intuitionism." Perhaps we need to differentiate with "metatheories of deduction?"
Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
We've switched from Importance to Priority when describing an assessment. In doing so, our statistics no longer work. User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS. Not sure how to correct this. Thanks Morphh (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that I am not James R. Meyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 ( talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been saying exactly what you have just said regarding balancing and analyzing multiple sources. There's a balanced way to write up a subject and it can be done only when the subject is fully understood. Somebody who doesn't understand the subject can scupper an article simply by quoting from specific sources. Can you please look at my last edit to centrifugal force on wikipedia. I would like to hear your comments on the issue of the balance of usage of sources. Administrators are talking about having me blocked. It is important that somebody with a mathematical background who is not involved in this dispute can supply an opinion on the arguments surrounding the balance of usage of sources in my last edit and the subsequent reversion by FyzixFighter and the reasons that he gave. David Tombe ( talk) 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You may want to watch User:Dinoguy1000/Assessment category RfC for any changes we may need to do... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I put an {{ editprotected}} tag on Talk:Simon_Sheppard_(far-right_activist) because it was indef move-protected. But on the table, it shows up as "Not protected" on the protection level. Is that by design? -shirulashem (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
His edits were made in violation of his probation and I reverted solely on that. They could have been all edits that said "I Like Penguins", and since there were more than 25 and not proposed or approved, I would have reverted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 13:49
Hi Carl. Can I prevail on you to take a position on the question I raised just now concerning the second sentence of the article on lines at the bottom of that article's talk page? If you agree with Tango I won't argue the point further. -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 07:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The non-standard analysis page already has an interesting section on criticisms (mostly on Connes). Could this be added to Bishop-Keisler controversya.k.a. Criticisms of non-standard analysis? I don't mean for the non-standard analysis page to be shortened, rather for the AfD page to be expanded. It seems there is a sentiment at the AfD page that there does appear to be a sufficient amount of material here, and a number of secondary sources remain unexplored. Katzmik ( talk) 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I need help. My account is blocked, and I can not even edit my own talk page.
Ever since I created the articles on Sarah Palin's churches and pastors, people have been trying to have me blocked. They have deleted my edits, citing "unreliable sources". Examples of the "unreliable sources are CBS News and Times of London, and the content of these sources were deleted.
I was accused of canvassing, but it was a person I never contacted, so that accusation was changed. Then I was accused of sockpuppetry, that I was pretending to be someone else (Witchieanna). The entire contents of my computer was wiped out at exactly the same time as I was blocked for editing for sockpuppetry (I have receipts for trying to recover my data, etc., which failed). I was told that this was impossible to be connected to Wikipedia, and was just a coincidence , since I never gave my email address. But I had my email enabled, so that was not true, either. When witchieanna, who was supposedly my meatpuppet, threatened some legal action, and I agreed not to fight a subpoena and not to lie under oath, and I wrote to the person who was doing all of this to me that I would help and see them in the court that they were getting me dragged into. Then the sockpuppetry thing was blocked, since it was discovered that I was not witchieanna. Then I was accused of making legal threats, because I agreed to help by not fighting a subpoena and by not lying under oath. I was blocked for this being a legal threat. After it became clear that I was not making a legal threat, but was asking to be kept out of whatever was going on, I was accused of being a meatpuppet of Anna, and blocked again. When my contribution history was looked at, the reason for the indefinite block was changed to "Obvious puppetry of some kind", and my talk page was blocked so I could not even respond to what was said about me. Anna's pages were blocked so she could not respond either.
How do I find an admin who will respond, and explain why I am "obviously" involved in "puppetry of some kind". I am now being told that I am involved in "puppetry" because I sometimes go to the same internet cafe as anna, and because I know her. Is there a reasonable admin who can stop all of this from happening to me, and leave me out of whatever legal stuff is going on, which I have no direct knowledge of, and do not want to be a part of?
This whole thing started when I tried to write information about Sarah Palin's pastors and churches, using CBS and Times of London as sources, and the content was deleted on the grounds that they were not reliable sources. Jclemens even changed the link from the Times of London from its news page to its blog page to misleadingly "argue" that it was not a reliable source. I am baffled by the complexity, pettiness, and what would best be called fraud in order to censor information, if it was outside Wikipedia. Changing links to mislead in arguing to delete info on TImes of London is close to fraud and deceipt. And when I tried to get help, I was accused of being a meatpuppet.
I am not a meatpuppet, and I do not control or have any influence over any editors, or their actions.
What can I do?
User:Tautologist 76.167.114.126 ( talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
Feel free to ignore this if you have better things to do. Katzmik asked me to talk to an admin before removing any of his changes. There have been enough reverts that it makes sense to try to sort things out before reverting. We currently make claims about what is, or is not an internal set and using Lightstone's article as the reference, which was published before the work defining internal sets. If you could comment on the talk page, it would be appreciated. I think that Katzmik (well he basically said) his edits are sanctioned by an administrator (I think he meant you, but I am unsure). Thanks for your time Thenub314 ( talk) 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be back so soon. Katzmik recently reverted my edits at this page under the suggestion that his version is agreed on by you. You hadn't explicitly said this, you simply edited the section after him, so I was wondering if you'd care to comment at the talk page (not as an admin but as an editor.)
Thanks Thenub314 ( talk) 16:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carl, user mathsci has unilaterally moved Criticism of nonstandard analysis to a title of his liking. Please restore some order as per AfD discussion. Katzmik ( talk) 08:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Note that he is already busy editing the article in accordance with the new title. Katzmik ( talk) 08:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I will also leave a message on Geometry Guy's page since you are traveling, but Peer Review Bot did not run today and ran at an odd time the last time it did run. I can do the SAPRs and archive by hand if need be, but hopefully the bot can be fixed / turned back on. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
<font=3> Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) |
---|
Hi CBM, I was wondering if it would be possible for VeblenBot to generate a table similar to PERtable for semi-protected edit requests? Thanks for your time and happy holidays! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot ( talk · contribs) has a compromised password, I have blocked the bot and changed the password to prevent a vandal from stealing the account. I am emailing you the temporary password. MBisanz talk 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Happy New Year - just wanted to let you know PeerReviewBot did not do the archiving or SAPR links today. Hope you are enjoying your travels and sorry to bother you, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the update - will the bot now run about the time it ran most recently (1 UTC) or will it go back to about 10 UTC? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could you make something like User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Video game articles by quality statistics? I recall asking you this about the table for the Economics WikiProject last year ( here and here) and I was wondering if you could do the same for the Video Games WikiProject. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 14:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate all the work on version 1.0 and the bots. Have a simple query: On Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot you describe hitcounts as being daily page views but the ones here toolserver selected score v1.0 are massively high compared to grok, even taking into account the truncating. e.g. US is 1.4 million on the selected score and only 40,000 on grok. Are you sure you didn't mean monthly page views or have i missed something? Appreciate an answer when you get a chance, as it gives me even more motivation to improve arcticles if there are more people hitting the pages than I previously thought. thanks, Tom B ( talk) 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in Operation Blue Star article, concerns include WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP & WP:V, the summary of dispute can be found at [1]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks LegalEagle ( talk) 05:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Any idea when this might get off the ground? Happy‑ melon 18:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Peer Review Bot said there were no SAPRs to link just now, but I did them about 5 hours ago - see diff. Not sure what the problem is, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does VeblenBot still check the size of WP:PR and WP:pr/d? I checked at random and the second was less than 1 KB from exceeding the limit, so I did the partial transclusion trick and got things back to a more manageable size. Just curious as there was no warning on the PR talk page, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
A while back you adjusted the IUPAC name at Hyodeoxycholic acid. There's a discussion now going on about making such changes in this WP:CHEM thread. No other registered user seems to have word wrapping problems. Perhaps you could let us know what browser you are using? Thanks, Xasodfuih ( talk) 23:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Carl, I got roughed up well in this discussion. I left some comments about sense and nonsense of searchability on Beetstra's page. Please take a look as a mathematician. What do you think? (my most recent points about lexical/grammatical properties, parsers, canonical forms etc and the sense and nonsense of such restrictions for what I believe is mostly associative search algorithms in ordinary search engines and a pre-parsed representation in chem engines anyway) Most important: is it a wild goose chase? If you are interested in gruesome humor you can read my other rants there too. 70.137.173.82 ( talk) 02:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
At least SOMETHING moved, after the witch sabbath. 70.137.173.82 ( talk) 22:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Your recent to the VPT seems to have screwed up the dates a bit. Perchance related to User:CBM/dates.js ? -- Splarka ( rant) 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi CBM,
I'm the original author of {{ val}} and many of the sub-templates it uses. Somebody recently reported a bug in {{ Val/delimitnum/real}} (See Template_talk:Val/delimitnum/real) and I have a fix that I'd like to apply. Unfortunately, the page is protected, so I no longer have access to {{ val}} or any of the sub-templates. I noticed that you had applied the protection. Would you either apply the fix in the template talk page for me or, preferably, grant me write access to {{ val}} and its sub-templates so I can continue to improve the template where needed without having to ask permission?
Thanks!
I'm not protesting the fact that it is protected. Because I have done most of the work on these templates, I feel I am in a unique position to improve them and I want to continue working on them where needed. It would be nice if I had direct access to them: having to ask permission is annoying, counter productive and discouraging. I haven't got as much time to edit Wikipedia and I'd like to spent as much of it as possible adding value to it, rather than having to ask if somebody could do so on my behalf, if you understand what I mean.
Hi Carl, Peer Review Bot ran today but did not link the SAPRs for some reason. On Feb 1 it linked the last reviews from January, but there were none from February to link. I forgot to run the script on Feb 2, but did run it earlier today (Feb 3) - see diff.
Also, is VeblenBot still checking the size of wp:pr/d? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like the halting problem article to be as clear as possible. What aspect of the present wording do you find confusing? I'm sure that some better wording can be found, it's just difficult because that particular sentence is too brief to be an actually "formal" statement. Maybe some more radical copyediting is needed. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 21:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither the WP:CHICAGO nor WP:ILLINOIS stats have run this month.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Carl, I appreciate your presence as a voice of sanity on the ID images issue. There's a typo in your post here which may prevent it from being as useful as it could be. Perhaps you'd like to correct it. Best wishes, -- John ( talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Is there currently a way I can generate a "frequently viewed" list of pages for dermatology tagged articles, similar to what has been done at the mathematics project (see here and here). I started WP:DERM and am looking to get more stats/info regarding our pages. Thanks in advance. kilbad ( talk) 00:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the words " In the study of real analysis" succeed in telling the lay reader that mathematics is what the article is about. I've edited it accordingly. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This user has made several edits to pages owned by User:VeblenBot. If they are malicious, you might want to revert them. His pattern of editing is rather odd, I'm not sure whether he is a vandal or just an experienced editor using a new account for some reason. Brianyoumans ( talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[2] It describes an unusual notion of decidability. Thanks. 76.195.10.34 ( talk) 09:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to be an A class review regular, how about taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation? There another one on the Four color theorem (for possible removal). The nominator there seems satisfied with the recent changes, so it's not as pressing to look at it, but of course if you have the time, a look there would be appreciated too. -- C S ( talk) 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have copied the style of your signature because I quite liked it. Hope you don't mind.
Another thing. I would be interested in helping with the development of the new bot if there's anything I could help with. I don't have a lot of programming experience but would be willing to learn, and I'm fairly good with templates now. Regards, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have access to JSTOR. What is your policy in retrieving articles for people such as myself who do not have easy access to JSTOR. I could go to my alma mater or the local community college, but neither of those are convenient, as you can imagine. -- Avi ( talk) 03:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
Thanks for the copy-editing. The reason for the scriptstyles was that when the TeX is in-line, and some elements in a sentence have decorations and others do not, it becomes a mix of text and display styles. To wit:
"In other words, if there exists a that maximizes , then is the maximum spacing estimator of ."
I made them all match the smaller text styles for æsthetic reasons. You think the mixed-size way is better? Thanks -- Avi ( talk) 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
But that goes against our MoS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Typesetting of mathematical formulas where it says:
Having LaTeX-based formulas in-line which render as PNG under the default user settings, as above, is generally discouraged, for the following reasons.
- The font size is larger than that of the surrounding text on some browsers, making text containing in-line formulas hard to read.
- Misalignment can result. For example, instead of ex, with "e" at the same level as the surrounding text and the x in superscript, one may see the e lowered to put the vertical center of the whole "ex" at the same level as the center of the surrounding text.
- The download speed of a page is negatively affected if it contains many images.
- HTML (as described below) is adequate for most simple in-line formulas and better for text-only browsers.
If an in-line formula needs to be typeset in LaTeX, often better formatting can be achieved with the
\textstyle
or\scriptstyle
LaTeX commands. By default, LaTeX code is rendered as if it were a displayed equation (not in-line), and this can frequently be too big. For example, the formula<math>\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2 = \pi^2/6 </math>
, which displays as , is too large to be used in-line.\textstyle
generates a smaller summation sign and moves the limits on the sum to the right side of the summation sign. This code for this is<math>\textstyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2 = \pi^2/6<math>
, and it renders as the much more aesthetic . However, the default font for\textstyle
is larger than the surrounding text on many browsers.\scriptstyle
makes the rendering even more compact by using a smaller font (it is the font used for subscripts and superscripts in ordinary displayed equations). The code<math>\scriptstyle\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^2 = \pi^2/6</math>
generates the even smaller , which should be approximately the same size as the surrounding text on many browsers. A drawback is that\scriptstyle
is often ugly for expressions where a superscript or subscript appears in a superscript or subscript: The doubly-scripted characters will render at the same size as the singly-scripted characters, which is inevitably too large. Compare , created with<math>\scriptstyle 2^{n_i}</math>
, with , created with<math>\textstyle 2^{n_i}</math>
If you plan on editing LaTeX formulas, it is helpful if you leave your preference settings (link in the upper right corner of this page, underneath your user name) in the "rendering math" section at the default "HTML if very simple or else PNG"; that way, you'll see the page like most users will see it.
-- Avi ( talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is how it looks on my browser: [4]. Much more readable. -- Avi ( talk) 03:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Are your preferences set as per the MoS suggests? -- Avi ( talk) 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I found that the comparitive size between the inline HTML and the rendered PNG is most similar using scriptstyle, and on a monitor of at least 1024x768 it was readable. Do you still feel strongly enough to mind if I restore the script tags? Do you feel that perhaps this is something the larger WP:Math community should weigh in upon? Thanks for your advice and corrections! -- Avi ( talk) 16:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for more input here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Using scriptstyle to make in-line symbols "fit". If I have misstated or misrepresented anything, please correct me. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
"Clearly a political move"—I believe you are right that it's not appropriate to say this. If you want to monitor the situation and remind all parties to cool it, if necessary, I'd be very pleased. The key flashpoints are WT:LINKING, WT:BTW, User:Ryan_Postlethwaite/Draft_RfC. The dispute doesn't seem to be getting any easier, and if anything has been worsened by the long, directionless ArbCom hearing. We are still unsure even what the scope of the hearing is, and the clerk's attempt to organise a series of RfCs is going to require a lot of luck if it doesn't implode. Tony (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, Carl. I just finished updating the {{ WikiProject Cape Verde}} template to use the {{ WPBannerMeta}} template, and I activated one of its available hooks, the importance/quality intersections one. Then I went looking and found this discussion from June/July 2008, where you wrote that you'd update the WP 1.0 bot code to enable linking to those intersections from the statistics tables. Was it done? Is it necessary to select an option somewhere to activate the feature, if it was implemented? Alternatively, I see that the example in that discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chennai/Assessment/Statistics has been updated regularly by Erwin85bot. If case the feature isn't yet available on WP 1.0 bot, should I ask Erwin to run WP Cape Verde's stats instead? Thanks, Waldir talk 13:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't doubt that you may be ultimately right in removing the image, but... in your summary you say,
Wikipedia policy does not permit the use of non-free images such as this on articles such as this
"Such as this" is not very descriptive in either the case of the image or the article. I did think the image was appropriate (or I wouldn't have added it), and did include a fair-use rationale, so I've obviously missed a policy nuance (or blatancy) here that your summary is not specific enough to clear up. Can you clarify which policy is being violated? This will help me avoid making the same mistake in the future.
Thanks, NapoliRoma ( talk) 22:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have two questions about peer review bot.
Thanks as always for all you do - the second thing is not urgent and the first may be my fault, but thought you should know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have copied the style of your signature because I quite liked it. Hope you don't mind.
Another thing. I would be interested in helping with the development of the new bot if there's anything I could help with. I don't have a lot of programming experience but would be willing to learn, and I'm fairly good with templates now. Regards, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
One thing you could do is to figure out what is the status of the proposal to split GA/FA apart from the A/B/C/Start/Stub ratings. If this is going to happen, we need to figure out how to implement the rollover, which would coincide with the new version of the WP 1.0 bot. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 17:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, is there any chance you could get VeblenBot to run on Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests as well? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi CBM. A long time ago you asked me a question, User_talk:Henrik#Bulk_queries_against_stats.grok.se. I have now finally replied. :) Cheers, henrik• talk 08:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This article [6] attributes an unusual concept of decidability to Tarski. Is it interesting? I'm thinking of linking it to the article about decidability and/or some related article. But it comes across as bogus to me. Thanks. 75.62.6.87 ( talk) 10:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Concerning the table at
User:VeblenBot/PERtable: It's a useful table, but I currently don't keep it watchlisted due to the timestamp edit noise every half hour. If the bot would only edit when there are actual changes to the category then I'd find it much more helpful, would keep it watchlisted, and requests would get a more timely response at least from me.
Could you consider throwing the timestamp out?
Cheers,
Amalthea
02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you around on the Wiki as someone who seems interested in the statistical trends. I've started a WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editing trends to help catalog the various types of user research that have been created. If you would like to sign up and help fill in our files, it would be most appreciated. MBisanz talk 05:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to think of ways of improving zeteo, so I'm wondering whether a wiki can be configured in a way that it is actually more like a (rigid) database, so I want to have several intertwined tables, such that users can edit the database items but not the database structure. Do you, by chance, know whether this is possible or have any other ideas about that? Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 17:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Your WP 1.0 bot is adding categories that are already covered automatically by {{ cat class}}, as seen on this edit. The bot adding them does not seem helpful to me and potentially a problem long-term, since the redundant category is now hardcoded and can't be changed with a template update. (Someone else reported this at User talk:WP 1.0 bot#Adding Categories but it hasn't been answered.) Hope that helps. — The Little Blue Frog ( ribbit) 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Category:Sentential logic, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I would be very interested in your opinion, and I just realised that you created the category, so you should have been asked anyway. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 15:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
In an effort to make the proposals page easier to read, edit and archive, and after a discussion here we decided it may be a good idea to make a system like that at Peer review. I just wondered if you could help by creating some sort of code to make this work, so instead of showing the whole proposal, it could just be a subpage that is transcluded into the main page in different sections, such as Art, Sport etc. and also in order of the time that they were created. Can you help? DeMoN2009 15:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I forgot to do the Semi-automated peer reviews two days in a row (sorry). My concern is that with the new month, the March SAPRs might be a problem now (not sure if the bot checks every time for PRs from the previous month or not). I ran all of the SAPRs as AZPR just now. Thanks and sorry for the bother, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Did you write the following part?
″“For some natural number n, where n is greater than 2, n is not the sum of two primes. Goldbach's conjecture is that this statement is false, that is, that every natural number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.″
In its present form the statement is just a correct statement. 11 is not the sum of two primes. Maybe you want to change the example again. Chris Barista ( talk) 15:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The FAC page name format has changed now; they are appended with /archiveX, where X is a number, whether they are active FACs or not. So, the page is now full of red links; could you please scrape the page names from each FAC article's talk page so that the links work? Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2035141 out of 2048000 bytes (12859 bytes left). This is an automated message. -- VeblenBot ( talk) 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been away from WP for a while, but I believe the process for FAC has changed a bit, thus rendering WP:FACL full of red links. I think by default, new nominations now reside at /archiveX (for example, Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_Cypriots/archive1). Can Veblenbot be updated to accommodate this change? Thanks! Budding Journalist 21:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
The Yuremamine article seems to be locked. How is it possible to do some minor editing? I just left a comment on the discussion page. Two commercial sites have been added to the reference list, and they are not relevant. Also, the first paragraph needs re-editing; e.g. decoctions and other preparations of this plant are not called, "ayahuasca".
Also, I am not so fluent in this particular problem, and I am not even sure how I can receive your response.
Advance thanks! Jace1 ( talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Carl. Perhaps I did not scroll down far enough to see the text body. In any event, this seems to be working for me now. I'll try to pay closer attention in the future. Jace1 ( talk) 08:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the bot is working on this. I appears that recent additions are not being put in the list. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, Peer Review Bot archived an article here as no recent comments but it was too new. I undid the edit. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am sure I am going about this the wrong way, but I see some problems in the Smiley face murders article. There is an anonymous IP reverting unsourced information without regard to guidelines. While there are sources attached, they do not mention the subject included (Mike Flaherty). The only source mentioned Mike Flaherty is an unreliable source. I do not know where else to turn when it seems that the other editor is avoiding discussion and doing whatever he/she feels. I want to avoid edit warring. What is my next step? Angryapathy ( talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Angryapathy ( talk) 23:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have merged elementarily equivalent, elementary embedding and Tarski–Vaught test into elementary substructure to get a decent-sized article. I would like to rename the resulting article to elementary equivalence, but unfortunately this already exists as a redirect to elementarily equivalent (no other history). Could you do the move for me when you are back? Thanks. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 14:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask you for another move? I would like to move Boolean algebra (structure) to Boolean lattice per BRD, edit summary "move to synonym that doesn't need disambiguation; better reflects current article contents". Unfortunately the existing redirect has a formally non-trivial edit history. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. The recent change to the FAC procedure (/archivex subpages) has left lots of redlinks on the update page. Is this something that's easily remediable? All the best, Steve T • C 17:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, there has been a second premature archiving error here as Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season has only been at PR a few days. I put this on the bot's page too - do you want such notices here in the future too? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you respond to this note? Regards— G716 < T· C> 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi-how do we get the category names updated to the current ones? Thanks, -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 04:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced#Proposal to change wording. Thank you. ascidian | talk-to-me 15:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to request for unprotect Template:Fb team template. I am working now on new template which will display teams locations on map User:Verwolff/football/Fb_map. I cannot finish until I am not able to put new variables into Fb team template. Hopefully you can unprotect this template for me. Regards.-- Verwolff ( talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I mean no offence, but it's been a while since I've been on wikipedia, and I just found that the Epic of Roy was deleted. It has your name on the deletion log, so i'm asking you, why? -- Tiddlydum ( talk)
A quick question, is "(x = 1)" a legitimate predicate in first order formal arithmetical languages? or is there a need to include a quantifier for some reason, such as "∃y(x = y) & (y = 1)"
i am trying to edit some stuff about Boolos's short proof of godel's theorem and i see the following in in Boolo's original paper
∃y (y = (10Xk) & A (x, y))
why can't he just write A(x,(10xk)) as a predicate? Is it merely a matter of style? or am i missing something? Philosophy.dude ( talk) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
"x is the least number not named by any formula containing less than fewer than 10k syllables."
And A (x, y) says (again in boolos' exact words
"x is the least formula not named by a formula of few than y symbols."
In his argument there are no replacement operations or anything like substitutions going on... (so it's not like the actual string "y = 10 x k" need to be present in the formula...
I think i understand boolos's argument in general but this is one subtitle thing i don't get.... it seems to have bearing on the truth value of things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosophy.dude ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks :)
74.77.21.249 (
talk)
15:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
When you have a chance, the red-linked categories at User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS need to be redirected to the current category names. Thanks -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 22:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I have a request and a question for you. I forgot to run the semi-automated peer reviews two nights in a row (I just did them but PeerReviewBot beat me by 7 minutes). There are 12 PRs without a linked SAPR, so would you please run the bot manually? I can do them by hand if you'd prefer.
The question would be a lot more work for you - I help out at DYK from time to time. There used to be a DYK update bot that was very helpful, but has not run for some time (it even had admin rights to update the Main Page). I know another user was working on a second bot, but that also seems not to have panned out. Your bots function so smoothly that I was wondering if you had the time and interest to write (or modify the existing script(s)) for a new DYK bot.
The tasks are to:
There are already a series of templates for the hooks that standardize the author and nominator and article information. In the past two parameters have been adjustable by admins - the next queue to be used for an update (there are 6 queues, normally they go in order, but if there is a problem with a hook a queue might be skipped on occasion) and the time interval for the next update) this is usually six hours, but if there is a big backlog it may be adjusted to a shorter interval.
If you are too busy or have no interest I understand, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask. I am not 100% sure I have mentioned all of the tasks / issues a bot would face, but I am pretty sure I have.
Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Boolos Burgess & Jeffry 2002:58 states "A first process is composition, also called substitution . . .", Enderton 2001 sends the reader to different places in the book for the different words (and I don't have the patience to wade through it, but he seems to be using substitution wrt logic and composition wrt functions), and Kleene 1952 does not use the word composition (only substitution, ditto for Goedel) nor does Sipser 2006. I looked up "substitution" here at wiki but didn't see it disambiguated re functions. What's going on? Thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 18:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was out on a bike ride and a random thought occurred: that all strings of written symbols e.g. mathematical equations, really require the use of "substitution" to change one string into another -- the operation of "string substitution" as in your example above. To trace the origin of the use of the word I did a bit more research: Minksy 1967:173 in a footnote states that "Composition is the operation of substituting function names for variables in other function names. A more formal treatment of this is in Kleene [1952] . . .". But as noted above, Kleene doesn't use the word (I double-checked). So I go to my trusty dictionary: "compose" comes from L. componere = com with, together, jointly + ponere to put. (This sounds more like "concatenate" than "substitute".) "Composite function" appears in Suppes 1960 (Axiomatic Set Theory), in Halmos 1960 (Naive Set Theory), in Saracino 1980 (Abstract Algebra: A First Course), but not in Reichenbach 1947 (Elements of Symbolic Logic). From this little survey I surmise that the use of "composition" came from the "incursion" of set theory into algebra (abstract and otherwise) during the 1950's. My point? I am uncomfortable with the composition (mathematics) article and the fact that substitution (mathematics), which is a perfectly good usage of the word and has historical significance, is not discussed anywhere . . . and the student leaves confused. Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
VeblenBot seems to have fallen asleep! Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Veblen writes File Talk instead of File on User:VeblenBot/PERtable. ( Old revision of User:VeblenBot/PERtable.) Also could &redirect=no be added to the link to the request; it would save a click in the case that the talk page is redirected, which happens fairly often. Thanks, — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
When you get a chance... By the way, awesome job on the table in the first place. I hadn't realized it was only added in March. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 17:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not able to understand the reason for this change.-- GDibyendu ( talk) 05:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen that you have edited something in " Turing machine", and that you are inside "Portal:Mathematics". I've seen that
" Turing machine" belongs to Portal:Mathematics (and I think it's ok), but " Entscheidungsproblem" (that starts with "In mathematics, the Entscheidungsproblem...") "belongs" only to Portal:Philosophy and while I don't know if it's really related to Philosophy (or if it's an error), I'm pretty sure that it should be also into "Portal:Mathematics" and also, probably, some content of the page "Turing machine" -> Entscheidungsproblem can/should be moved in the main page " Entscheidungsproblem".
[and -yes I'm an italian- so *probably* sorry for some error in my English!]
Thanks, Ad88110 ( talk) 14:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
i am not sure if i register account name ‘georgezhao’ before, i want to Manage my global account, but find this user name 'georgezhao' used different password, i cannot remember which one to use. i faided to merge my english account and chinese account. could you please help me to figure out why?
it seems no people is using this account‘georgezhao’ , please help me to change my user-name 'gzhao' to georgezhao? thank you very much。 66.7.131.199 ( talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gamma boron discovery controversy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamma boron discovery controversy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 21:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
See WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic?. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead of leaving them as red links, could the dates please link to the article itself, so that the links are still clickable and useful? Gary King ( talk) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
See WT:WikiProject Logic#Propositional logic or sentential logic?. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead of leaving them as red links, could the dates please link to the article itself, so that the links are still clickable and useful? Gary King ( talk) 17:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, thanks to your good work to make VeblenBot's category listing so easy to use, we haven't been in touch for a while, which has saved many communications, although in some ways has been a pity, as I have always enjoyed working with you to make Wikipedia easier for others to contribute. Anyway, I've noticed on several occasions (such as GAR categories, and most recently at Category:Good articles in need of review) that VeblenBot can get stuck when categories are empty. Can you remedy this? Please let me know if further details would be helpful. Geometry guy 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Frequently viewed which you created. Is it possible to have something like that created for WP:GERMANY? Agathoclea ( talk) 10:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As reported on Oleg's talk, Special:Contributions/WP 1.0 bot shows nothing after 09:54 UTC, and the bot died halfway through its run through WP:GERMANY... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 10:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, thanks for updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Frequently viewed/List and persuading Veblenbot to update the {{ maths rating}}s accordingly. One question: I'd assumed the numbers at the end of each entry in the List are the hitcounts for the whole of the period January 2009 through April 2009, but they appear to be far too small — e.g. stats.grok.se reports 380439 hits for Standard deviation in April 2009 alone, while the updated List has "2. Standard deviation 25784". That's also much smaller than the figure of 538269 given in the previous version of the List for Feb 1, 2008 to Feb 23, 2008. Are the new figures divided by 100 or something? Regards, Qwfp ( talk) 11:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I suspect this bot edit has not done what was intended. The talk page had been blanked, so it has some excuse. This is just to let you know. -- Avenue ( talk) 12:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, there are too many false positives from the import of old UseModWiki edits. Maybe a query like "if the rev date is Jan. 2003 but the rev ID is way above expected for that time" would get most of the edits I want, since the server clocks often seemed to reset in January 2003. Graham 87 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
PeerReviewBot has not yet run today - not sure if you knew. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you know how to do this? (I found this and then posted it to the Wikipedia namespace, but I have no idea how it was created).
Please rebuild it.
(Or explain to the rest of us how, so one of us can do it).
The Transhumanist 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
.allpagesredirect { display:none; }
in your css will hide the redirects, though you'll have to skip past the subpages yourself. —
Cryptic
18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)I put a list at http://toolserver.org/~cbm/data/wikipedia.base.txt . Do with it what you will. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
CBM, please see this posting. Do you understand where these came from?!! Thanks, Walkerma ( talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Finally had a look at those navboxes as I think you noticed. I think they're looking good now, with the exception of the alphabetical index. This one is really difficult to use I think. I'm not sure how you decided to organise those pages - perhaps you've tried to get an equal number of entries on each page or something like that? I think it would be better with a separate page for each letter (or group of letters). — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I added four semi-automated peer reviews here but when the bot ran later it found nothing to link diff. It also did not archive anything, although that happens occasionally. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. WP 1.0 bot ( talk · contribs) seems to be malfunctioning. It lists all tagged pages as newly added. (See here.) Regards, Good raise 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carl, there is a proposal to rename peer review at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Renaming_.22peer_review.22_to_.22internal_review.22. My question is, would this be technically problematic with Veblenbot and Peer Review Bot? Or do you see any other problems or technical issues with a possible renaming? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since you created {{ Citizendium}}, I thought you might be interested in the proposed WikiProject Citizendium Porting. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 20:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm posting this on your (and other members of the Maths Wikiproject) talk as we need editors who are knowledgeable about Mathematics to evaluate the following discussion and check out the editors and articles affected. Please follow the link below and comment if you can help.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_-_uninvolved_admin_request.
Thankyou. Exxolon ( talk) 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Please see my question over here. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. How/where do you query the database? Ha! ( talk)
A few years ago, you chimed in on Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks regarding the exclusion of the victim's name as part of the article. This topic has come up again over at Talk:Incidents at Disney parks. Feel free to join in, if you could. SpikeJones ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
VeblenBot has suddenly started auto-listing subcategories as well as pages in categories, as shown in this diff. Maybe there has been a mediawiki or toolserver change. Is there a workaround? Thanks, Geometry guy 16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been informed that I appeared on your poll. I ask that you review the conversation at the bottom of this archived page] and then the discussion of my unfortunate block on the blocking admin's page. Other than that one incident, I have never been blocked for incivility... real or presumed... and I am uncomfortable with the erroneous impression my being on your list might give to editors not familiar with the circumstances of the block and its speedy removal. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I simply made a list of blocks that met the criteria listed in the query. There is no presumption they are correct, and moreover the purpose of the list is to allow people to look through them to see whether they are correct. Once the overall civility poll is closed, I have no objections to the page being blanked. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings Carl,
I have been working on a proposal for organizing articles about "ideas" based on the observation that they can inevitably be identified as either "concepts" or "theories." I had been working on a lot of belief systems, "-isms," "-ologies," and even some "-sis"es, putting them into "theory" categories and I observed that it helped immensely to diffuse many general categories. I was often left with articles about single "concepts." I have been putting some ideas at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I think at some point you had proposed to make a "basic concepts in logic" (or math) category. I think this type of approach will help to make it possible to streamline other categories in the future. The whole thing is an ontological approach to categories.
I am no longer interested in keeping whole second paragraph at set (mathematics). I think the important thing is to ontologically identify it somewhere, and that is adequately achieved in the first paragraph with a wikilink to concept. The whole abstract object issue is sufficiently dealt with over in articles like idea, concept, and mental representation. I would like to create a category for all the fundamental concepts of mathematics as described at U:Gb/C&T, perhaps "mathematical objects." This is intended to be very limited to single concepts like "set." I had proposed to move category "abstract objects" to "concepts" because of your legitimate concerns but there was no consensus.
I also would like to know what you think about Category:Theories of deduction. There are a bunch of other potential members, but ones like "model theory" are different than ones like "intuitionism." Perhaps we need to differentiate with "metatheories of deduction?"
Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard ( talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
We've switched from Importance to Priority when describing an assessment. In doing so, our statistics no longer work. User:VeblenBot/Economics/table:ECONOMICS. Not sure how to correct this. Thanks Morphh (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that I am not James R. Meyer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 ( talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been saying exactly what you have just said regarding balancing and analyzing multiple sources. There's a balanced way to write up a subject and it can be done only when the subject is fully understood. Somebody who doesn't understand the subject can scupper an article simply by quoting from specific sources. Can you please look at my last edit to centrifugal force on wikipedia. I would like to hear your comments on the issue of the balance of usage of sources. Administrators are talking about having me blocked. It is important that somebody with a mathematical background who is not involved in this dispute can supply an opinion on the arguments surrounding the balance of usage of sources in my last edit and the subsequent reversion by FyzixFighter and the reasons that he gave. David Tombe ( talk) 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You may want to watch User:Dinoguy1000/Assessment category RfC for any changes we may need to do... Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I put an {{ editprotected}} tag on Talk:Simon_Sheppard_(far-right_activist) because it was indef move-protected. But on the table, it shows up as "Not protected" on the protection level. Is that by design? -shirulashem (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)