![]() | 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. |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl. The article History of logic is going through an FAC here The nominating editor has asked me for help (see User talk:Paul August#Logic after WW2). Unfortunately I don't really know much about this. I told him I would ask you (and Trovatore) for help. I will also post a general request for help at the mathematics project. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi I have extended this section [1] in line with your ideas. Would you have a look? Thanks. From the other side ( talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
[2] Yow, this mentions Hewitt. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 10:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Re your comments on the history of logic FAC, you said "So for the general subject of "logic", the article is slanted much too much towards older works and towards philosophy." I think that is actually accurate for an article focusing on logic rather than "mathematical logic". Of course mathematical logic is wonderful, but there is a plenty of interest in "logic" by philosophers unrelated to mathematics. Also, that is just one section in a longer article, so it can't mention every possible thing. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Btw, do you think the PCP theorem is interesting as a topic in the intersection of proof theory and philosophy? (Alasdair Urquhart: "It's a striking fact to me that some of the most interesting recent extensions of the concept of proof, such as that of a probabilistically checkable proof, have come from outside the proof theory community. These are not proofs in the classical Hilbert sense, of course, but from a foundational point of view, if you define 'proof' as something that convinces you, then they really do seem to be proofs in that sense." [3]). I'm wondering whether to propose mentioning it for the logic article. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NS2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blazon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the reference desk talk page header from it's old location in talk namespace to Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header. I'm just notifying you because your watched articles subpage links to the old header location. -- Ludwigs2 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the bot doesn't seem to have updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cornwall-related articles by quality for a couple of months. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Alternative text for images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey CBM, :)
Hope you're having safe travels! When you get back, I was wondering if you'd want to work on the same repository as me for the bot framework that you made (and I have messed with ;) )? The Tool Server team still hasn't been able to get around to my requests for an account & I've made enough changes to the API.pm that I was getting uncomfortable not having a specific SVN repo for it.
I've started a repository over heya: http://svn.seancolombo.com/perlmediawikiapi (and trac and a wiki, etc.). Would u like me to set up an account for you or would you rather I just try to follow your project's repo and occasionally merge your changes into mine (and vice-versa if you so desire)?
Hope your trip goes well ^^
-
SColombo (
talk)
17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Scottish Islands was mistakenly updated by WP 1.0 bot. Finavon ( talk) 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see how using the traditional category system can be lot of work because membership in a subcategory may or may not mean implicit membership in the parent category. But perhaps we can combine the advantages of both approaches by using hidden categories:
E.g. for Algebra, we could have something like Category:WPM algebra, a new hidden category. We would normally only apply this category to other categories, not to individual articles. Every (immediate) member of a category in this Category:WPM algebra would be considered an Algebra article. This category would probably contain Category:Algebra and all its immediate subcategories. But it would be an individual decision for each, and for sub-subcategories such as Category:Computer algebra systems or Category:Variable (computer programming) we would decide explicitly whether to include them or not.
We could also consider hidden categories of the form Category:WPM not algebra. For any category in Category:WPM algebra we would put those subcategories which we don't want into Category:WPM not algebra. Then it would be trivial to check the resulting structure for consistency and completeness.
By the way, instead of hidden categories we could also simply apply the field parameter to project banners on category pages and run a bot that adds the field to the project banners of immediate category members. Hans Adler 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
there's a bit of a flap on mathematics about the assertion that the Goedel theorems showed that mathematics could not be reduced to logic. At least one editor who doesn't think that happened is much more confident than his understanding of the topic justifies, which is rather irritating, but I think he was correct that the sentence as phrased was too strong. He removed it entirely; I restored a softened version of it. But even the softened version should really be sourced. I was wondering if you had any such sources. The Gödel's incompleteness theorems article sources it to a rather obscure article by Hellmann that I don't have; surely there's something more appropriate in some standard text. -- Trovatore ( talk) 09:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Re Trovatore: I thought that the start of logicism was either Frege's system or Principia Mathematica, each of which went far past arithmetic? Of course one could restrict to arithmetic, but I have the sense things were more fuzzy back then. Also see the footnote on page 3 of this paper [5], which gives a mixed appraisal of the role of Goedel's theorems in the death of logicism, and probably has some useful references. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that was an AWB flagged change. LilHelpa ( talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Waste of Time ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Waste of Time ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This bot closed a Peer review that hadn't even been opened yet! Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive1. Not sure why it would do that... -- Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you can work your magic again to get the
JIRA issue some more love?
Thanks! :)
-
SColombo (
talk)
18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, PeerReviewBot did not recognize the PR templates on the talk pages of four articles in its most recent run through. I checked and did not see a problem with any of them, but did not fix them by hand as I figured you might need to see them first. User:PeerReviewBot/Logs/Archive. Thanks as always for all of your help with PR, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, SilkTork moved Wikipedia:Essay Categorization and/or Classification and all associated pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays. Don't know if the move will affect the bot. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Research ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Research ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your tip on how to find references quickly if they exist and when they don't have an inline reference.
In this case I reckon the anonymous IP, who has made almost no edits, is more likely to check the article he has changed than his talk page. This may anyway different if he doesn't have a static IP. So this is the only practical place to give him my minimal tip.
Personally I find it helpful if the references are mentioned where they apply, as it means I don't need to look through a list at the end of the articles to see whether or not the reference exists. I think this is the preferred method these days. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 10:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Carl. Hope you are good? Can you please see this wiki project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgrade) and tell me why Importance don't working in the table? Should i create new template? All best, -- Tadija taking 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I got it! :) Thanks anyway! :) -- Tadija taking 12:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
They finally approved me, but I agree it would be best to just go third-party in case someone else joins up. I have SVN as a feature of my DreamHost account so we could use a repo there, google code, or somewhere else... I have no particular preference: whatever works best for you. Let me know if you have a particular leaning. (and thank you for the login patch!)
-
SColombo (
talk)
00:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Embedded lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Embedded list ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
I realized recently that Mediawiki/API.pm and MediaWiki/API.pm are actually different things, with the former being your package. I am just curious, is there a reason for why there are two such packages instead of one? I am also wondering why the names are so similar (I thought for a while that the former was just a misspelling of the latter package). Just wondering. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And a comment unrelated to the above. The User:WP 1.0 bot page points to the source code in the svn repository here. Now that the "2G" bot has been the default for a long time, perhaps the directories in there could be renamed so that the user is led to the current source code rather than to the code of the older bot no longer in use. The User:WP 1.0 bot page itself could perhaps need a bit of overhaul given that the 2G bot has been the default for a while as well. Just some minor remarks. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pro and con lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you made a contribution to the article Ordinal scale. I agree that it ”should be translated into English‘’ as stated by User:Kdammers. I nominated the article as a candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Would you please vote for it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive
Your vote would be especially meaningful since you focus on editing articles about mathematical logic. Perhaps you could encourage others to vote for this article as well.
Feel free to respond on my talk page.
We have until April 23, 2010 to get 4 votes. Thank you very much for your help! Tucoxn ( talk) 07:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you please create the template ambox on http://pa.wikipedia.org. Serjatt ( talk) 14:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I know of a script that can be helpful in that regard... add
importScript('User:John254/mass rollback.js');
to your monobook,js, then click the "rollback all" tab. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm talking about using AWB as an IP, which normally isn't possible. In addition, he isn't on the checkpage. appended Boy, people seem to be jumping the gun on this... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? 174.3.123.220 ( talk) 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This reverted a good edit regarding WP:bolding. 174.3.123.220 ( talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Offensive material ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 38 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to watch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, yeah could you open this for me? Neither of my computers can figure out how to open a postscript file. I would have thought that my full-version Acrobat could do it, but it choked. My email is pierab@aol.com. Thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 14:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for the Welcome! My concern is that that article is too long to cite too few references, thats why i put the tag. Unfortenately i know very little about the subject to add or modify something. Gecg ( talk) 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Writing better articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar | |
On behalf of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, we confer this award in appreciation of your work to create the process necessary to update our WikiWork table through the use of WP1.0bot. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Words to watch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Days of the year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Spam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Public domain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You had previously commented on this discussion; if possible, please weigh-in at the above straw poll. – xeno talk 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this must be a bug: WP 1.0 bot reports updates to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods article assessments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arthropods articles by quality log#April 28, 2010 (all of them changes from B-class to C-class), although no such changes have occurred. In the case of Talk:Trombiculidae, there have been no changes since January, and all the projects list it as B-class. The others are Talk:Tick, Talk:American lobster, Talk:Coconut crab, Talk:Crayfish and Talk:Mantis shrimp, in each of which there is at least a different project which has assessed the article as C-class, but none of those talk pages has even been edited in the relevant 24 hours, let alone reassessed. What's going on? -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
See this it says we went from 19k to 0 articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There was (pre-announced) database maintenance last night. I thought that, if the database server went down, my bot would simply stop running. Instead, the bot kept running without any data. The ratings info in the database was always correct; the tables that showed no articles were mistaken. I had the bot upload the tables again last night once the database was back up, which restored the correct information. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 10:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to comment and criticise my short article on On Goedel's Conjecture? Thank you MACherian MACherian ( talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on the issue, but you got reverted by the same IP you reverted at [9] Figured it was more likely to be on my watchlist than yours. :) Orderinchaos 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There are 12 million registered users on WP and only one has complained about it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for your comment re my addition of {{ maths rating}} to the above. I came across the article whilst on new page patrol. It had no talk page, so as well as adding the expert tag, I attempted to place a Maths project banner to the talk page, but the resultant text instructed me to add maths rating instead. If I had not done so, I cannot see how it could have appeared in the list you referred to as the article was uncategorised. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The main reason it recurs is that it is not a coding error (therefore the developers are not likely to remove it from AWB). It has had only good effects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt. -- Trovatore ( talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Essays-1. We've changed the category name from "importance" to "impact" which zeroed out the table created above. Is this fixable? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Saw your edits. It was a valiant effort. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
I hereby award you this Invisible Barnstar, for your behind-the-scenes contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays. You've gone out of your way to make sure our WikiProject functions the best way it can, and completes its mission of bringing order to Wikipedia Essays. We thank you. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:List of policies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of policies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to avoid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is from FOM archive so you may have seen it already, but if not, it might interest you. [11] 69.228.170.24 ( talk) 08:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I intend to remove Category:Wikipedia style guidelines from all the pages as they are now better sorted in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style. Can you change your bot to monitor this category and its children ? Gnevin ( talk) 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You might like to consider whether this should be categorised as an inverse problem. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed your mass reverting going on. Not sure if you're using a tool to do this or what, but since it seems to be, quite literally, massive, might I suggest that you revert as a bot? (I assume there's a good reason for these reverts and won't get into that, I'm just trying to read the recent changes) -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 02:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm clueless about the methodology, so I appreciate the attention. Thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Trashing Prof. Hewitt is harming Wikipedia's reputation. Why don't you read his ArXiv publication and make peace? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.225 ( talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Public domain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like we have an expert editor, User:DPMulligan, willing to work in that area. But, he seems rather new to Wikipedia, so he might need some help with style etc., so the articles don't read like research papers. Maybe you can help? Pcap ping 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this edit where I removed a newline before a noinclude. This fixes an extra bit of white space in any transcluding pages. I see that the pages is maintained by your bot, so expect that this will be overwritten. I also believe that there will be a lot of instances of this issue. Should this result in a slight tweak to your bot code? If not, whatever other similar pages should be tweaked, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you run a query on the toolserver to find all AfD discussions for bilateral relations? These are all named along the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country X–Contry Y relations pattern. I'm guessing the rule should be that the word "relations" appears in the title, an that it contain an ndash or -. The maintenance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations was manual and haphazard until today. There didn't keep any archives of the closed discussions. At some point they've even stopped using the list and resorted to plain old talk page canvassing to notify interested parties, which resulted in a giant bruhaha on ANI this week. Thanks. Pcap ping 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, could you also find those at 2nd, 3rd nomination? The termination should be /Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.*relations.*nomination\)/, I think. Pcap ping 13:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I nearly crashed Wikipedia with 500 huge transclusions on a page. Obviously the delsort wasn't designed for a huge glut of closed discussions. I hope User:The wubbot can handle it. Pcap ping 14:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully I set this up correctly, and the bot will come through soon? Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The reflist run is completely different I don't run that using the hacked version of AWB you insisted on. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC).
Carl, Thanks for your message on my talk page. The essence of my argument is that Pythagoras's theorem is a special 3D case of the Lagrange identity. The Lagrange identity itself can hold in any dimensions. Seven dimensions is a special case which gives a semblance of Pythagoras's theorem, but no other dimensions, apart from 3 or 7, even give a semblance of Pythagoras's theorem.
It seems to me that the root of our disagreement is the fact that you believe Pythagoras's theorem to be a 2D affair. The problem with that is that a 2D space without the existence of a third dimension is as dificult to imagine as a 4D space. In our 3D world, every 2D plane has a perpendicular direction in the third dimension, and every rotation has a spin axis that has a direction which is perpendicular to the plane of rotation. Angle is a measure of the 'degree of rotation'. If we go into a purely 2D world, we cannot even imagine what things would be like. If we extrapolate Pythagoras's theorem into 'n' dimensions generally, on the basis that it is always a 2D affair, then we are playing around with spaces which we don't comprehend and we can neither prove nor disprove Pythagoras's theorem in those spaces. The extrapolation to 'n' dimensions merely becomes a definition.
The areal/geometric interpretation in 3D hence gives way to a metric interpretation in 'n'D. The two concepts cease to be the same thing. David Tombe ( talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl, Your statement,
It's just a quirk of three-dimensional space that each rotation has a line as an axis.
is the keypoint in the entire issue. Pythagoras's theorem may well only apply to a 2D triangle, but it applies in a 3D space. Whether or not Pythagoras's theorem would apply in a 2D space or a 4D space is sheer conjecture.
The Lagrange identity makes it quite clear that Pythagoras's theorem is a special 3D case. It's all very well to talk about 'inner product spaces'. But when you import a concept such as Pythagoras's theorem, which contains the outer product intrinsically, you cannot cut the outer product out. The outer product will still be there. The conclusion is that either Pythagoras's theorem does not fit inside an 'n' dimensional inner product space, due to its intrinsic outer product, or else we have to change the interpretation of Pythagoras's theorem in an 'n' dimensional inner product space.
The situation, as per the sources, seems to be the latter. Pythagoras's theorem applies in an 'n' dimensional inner product space, but the interpretation shifts from 'areal' to 'metric'. The terminologies also change, such as from 'perpendicular' to 'orthogonal'.
That, in my opinion, was the purpose of contrasting the 'areal' interpration with the 'metric' interpretation' in the article. David Tombe ( talk) 10:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl, I could simplify the argument to the singular fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the special 3D case of Lagrange's identity. What would you say to that argument? David Tombe ( talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl, You have acknowledged that the three dimensional case of the Lagrange identity is Pythagoras's theorem. Yet you say that this fact is 'amusing', rather than 'relevant'.
You see, even without using the Lagrange identity, I could see that Pythagoras's theorem is a theorem about a 2D triangle in a 3D space. I could always see that as soon as 'angle' is involved, then we are into the realms of axes of rotation that are lines which are perpendicular to the plane of the triangle. I could always see that Pythagoras's theorem was a theorem which requires the third dimension even though the triangle itself sits in a 2D plane. Pythagoras's theorem leads to the Pythagoras trigonomentric identity. That in turn introduces both sine and cosine, which in turn introduce outer and inner product and hence demonstrate that Pythagoros's theorem is the special 3D case of the Lagrange identity.
At any rate, we don't even need to get into the argument about whether or not Pythagoras's theorem intrinsically contains an outer product or not, or whether that outer product is required to be left outside the door when Pythagoras's theorem gets invited into an inner product space.
The argument comes down simply to the fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the 3D version of the Lagrange identity. If you think that that is merely an amusing fact, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Every debate has to end sooner or later. And I think that we can correctly sum this debate up as follows.
On the issue of the fact that Pythaogoras's theorem can be shown to be the 3D case of the Lagrange identity,
(1) One party maintained that this is evidence that Pythagoras's theorem is strictly a 3D affair, while
(2) The other party maintained that this is merely amusing but without any relevance.
It will have to be left to readers to make up their own mind on this matter. David Tombe ( talk) 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
See here. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:40, 23 May 2010 (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. |
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl. The article History of logic is going through an FAC here The nominating editor has asked me for help (see User talk:Paul August#Logic after WW2). Unfortunately I don't really know much about this. I told him I would ask you (and Trovatore) for help. I will also post a general request for help at the mathematics project. Paul August ☎ 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi I have extended this section [1] in line with your ideas. Would you have a look? Thanks. From the other side ( talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
[2] Yow, this mentions Hewitt. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 10:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Re your comments on the history of logic FAC, you said "So for the general subject of "logic", the article is slanted much too much towards older works and towards philosophy." I think that is actually accurate for an article focusing on logic rather than "mathematical logic". Of course mathematical logic is wonderful, but there is a plenty of interest in "logic" by philosophers unrelated to mathematics. Also, that is just one section in a longer article, so it can't mention every possible thing. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Btw, do you think the PCP theorem is interesting as a topic in the intersection of proof theory and philosophy? (Alasdair Urquhart: "It's a striking fact to me that some of the most interesting recent extensions of the concept of proof, such as that of a probabilistically checkable proof, have come from outside the proof theory community. These are not proofs in the classical Hilbert sense, of course, but from a foundational point of view, if you define 'proof' as something that convinces you, then they really do seem to be proofs in that sense." [3]). I'm wondering whether to propose mentioning it for the logic article. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NS2 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists)/Sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (visual arts) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dermatology-related articles) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blazon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the reference desk talk page header from it's old location in talk namespace to Wikipedia:Reference desk/talk header. I'm just notifying you because your watched articles subpage links to the old header location. -- Ludwigs2 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the bot doesn't seem to have updated Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cornwall-related articles by quality for a couple of months. DuncanHill ( talk) 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (road junction lists) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Alternative text for images ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey CBM, :)
Hope you're having safe travels! When you get back, I was wondering if you'd want to work on the same repository as me for the bot framework that you made (and I have messed with ;) )? The Tool Server team still hasn't been able to get around to my requests for an account & I've made enough changes to the API.pm that I was getting uncomfortable not having a specific SVN repo for it.
I've started a repository over heya: http://svn.seancolombo.com/perlmediawikiapi (and trac and a wiki, etc.). Would u like me to set up an account for you or would you rather I just try to follow your project's repo and occasionally merge your changes into mine (and vice-versa if you so desire)?
Hope your trip goes well ^^
-
SColombo (
talk)
17:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It appears User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Scottish Islands was mistakenly updated by WP 1.0 bot. Finavon ( talk) 08:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I can see how using the traditional category system can be lot of work because membership in a subcategory may or may not mean implicit membership in the parent category. But perhaps we can combine the advantages of both approaches by using hidden categories:
E.g. for Algebra, we could have something like Category:WPM algebra, a new hidden category. We would normally only apply this category to other categories, not to individual articles. Every (immediate) member of a category in this Category:WPM algebra would be considered an Algebra article. This category would probably contain Category:Algebra and all its immediate subcategories. But it would be an individual decision for each, and for sub-subcategories such as Category:Computer algebra systems or Category:Variable (computer programming) we would decide explicitly whether to include them or not.
We could also consider hidden categories of the form Category:WPM not algebra. For any category in Category:WPM algebra we would put those subcategories which we don't want into Category:WPM not algebra. Then it would be trivial to check the resulting structure for consistency and completeness.
By the way, instead of hidden categories we could also simply apply the field parameter to project banners on category pages and run a bot that adds the field to the project banners of immediate category members. Hans Adler 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
there's a bit of a flap on mathematics about the assertion that the Goedel theorems showed that mathematics could not be reduced to logic. At least one editor who doesn't think that happened is much more confident than his understanding of the topic justifies, which is rather irritating, but I think he was correct that the sentence as phrased was too strong. He removed it entirely; I restored a softened version of it. But even the softened version should really be sourced. I was wondering if you had any such sources. The Gödel's incompleteness theorems article sources it to a rather obscure article by Hellmann that I don't have; surely there's something more appropriate in some standard text. -- Trovatore ( talk) 09:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Re Trovatore: I thought that the start of logicism was either Frege's system or Principia Mathematica, each of which went far past arithmetic? Of course one could restrict to arithmetic, but I have the sense things were more fuzzy back then. Also see the footnote on page 3 of this paper [5], which gives a mixed appraisal of the role of Goedel's theorems in the death of logicism, and probably has some useful references. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that was an AWB flagged change. LilHelpa ( talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Waste of Time ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Waste of Time ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This bot closed a Peer review that hadn't even been opened yet! Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive1. Not sure why it would do that... -- Esuzu ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Any chance you can work your magic again to get the
JIRA issue some more love?
Thanks! :)
-
SColombo (
talk)
18:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, PeerReviewBot did not recognize the PR templates on the talk pages of four articles in its most recent run through. I checked and did not see a problem with any of them, but did not fix them by hand as I figured you might need to see them first. User:PeerReviewBot/Logs/Archive. Thanks as always for all of your help with PR, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, SilkTork moved Wikipedia:Essay Categorization and/or Classification and all associated pages to Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays. Don't know if the move will affect the bot. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Research ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Research ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your tip on how to find references quickly if they exist and when they don't have an inline reference.
In this case I reckon the anonymous IP, who has made almost no edits, is more likely to check the article he has changed than his talk page. This may anyway different if he doesn't have a static IP. So this is the only practical place to give him my minimal tip.
Personally I find it helpful if the references are mentioned where they apply, as it means I don't need to look through a list at the end of the articles to see whether or not the reference exists. I think this is the preferred method these days. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 10:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Carl. Hope you are good? Can you please see this wiki project ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgrade) and tell me why Importance don't working in the table? Should i create new template? All best, -- Tadija taking 12:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC) I got it! :) Thanks anyway! :) -- Tadija taking 12:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
They finally approved me, but I agree it would be best to just go third-party in case someone else joins up. I have SVN as a feature of my DreamHost account so we could use a repo there, google code, or somewhere else... I have no particular preference: whatever works best for you. Let me know if you have a particular leaning. (and thank you for the login patch!)
-
SColombo (
talk)
00:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Embedded lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Embedded list ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl,
I realized recently that Mediawiki/API.pm and MediaWiki/API.pm are actually different things, with the former being your package. I am just curious, is there a reason for why there are two such packages instead of one? I am also wondering why the names are so similar (I thought for a while that the former was just a misspelling of the latter package). Just wondering. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And a comment unrelated to the above. The User:WP 1.0 bot page points to the source code in the svn repository here. Now that the "2G" bot has been the default for a long time, perhaps the directories in there could be renamed so that the user is led to the current source code rather than to the code of the older bot no longer in use. The User:WP 1.0 bot page itself could perhaps need a bit of overhaul given that the 2G bot has been the default for a while as well. Just some minor remarks. :) Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 23:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Pro and con lists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you made a contribution to the article Ordinal scale. I agree that it ”should be translated into English‘’ as stated by User:Kdammers. I nominated the article as a candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Would you please vote for it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Collaboration_and_Improvement_Drive
Your vote would be especially meaningful since you focus on editing articles about mathematical logic. Perhaps you could encourage others to vote for this article as well.
Feel free to respond on my talk page.
We have until April 23, 2010 to get 4 votes. Thank you very much for your help! Tucoxn ( talk) 07:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you please create the template ambox on http://pa.wikipedia.org. Serjatt ( talk) 14:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I know of a script that can be helpful in that regard... add
importScript('User:John254/mass rollback.js');
to your monobook,js, then click the "rollback all" tab. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well I'm talking about using AWB as an IP, which normally isn't possible. In addition, he isn't on the checkpage. appended Boy, people seem to be jumping the gun on this... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? 174.3.123.220 ( talk) 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This reverted a good edit regarding WP:bolding. 174.3.123.220 ( talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Offensive material ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Profanity ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 38 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to watch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carl, yeah could you open this for me? Neither of my computers can figure out how to open a postscript file. I would have thought that my full-version Acrobat could do it, but it choked. My email is pierab@aol.com. Thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 14:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank You for the Welcome! My concern is that that article is too long to cite too few references, thats why i put the tag. Unfortenately i know very little about the subject to add or modify something. Gecg ( talk) 16:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation)/IPA vs. other pronunciation symbols ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Writing better articles ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiProject U.S. Roads Contributor Barnstar | |
On behalf of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, we confer this award in appreciation of your work to create the process necessary to update our WikiWork table through the use of WP1.0bot. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Words to watch ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Days of the year ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Spam ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User pages ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Public domain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You had previously commented on this discussion; if possible, please weigh-in at the above straw poll. – xeno talk 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this must be a bug: WP 1.0 bot reports updates to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods article assessments at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arthropods articles by quality log#April 28, 2010 (all of them changes from B-class to C-class), although no such changes have occurred. In the case of Talk:Trombiculidae, there have been no changes since January, and all the projects list it as B-class. The others are Talk:Tick, Talk:American lobster, Talk:Coconut crab, Talk:Crayfish and Talk:Mantis shrimp, in each of which there is at least a different project which has assessed the article as C-class, but none of those talk pages has even been edited in the relevant 24 hours, let alone reassessed. What's going on? -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
See this it says we went from 19k to 0 articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There was (pre-announced) database maintenance last night. I thought that, if the database server went down, my bot would simply stop running. Instead, the bot kept running without any data. The ratings info in the database was always correct; the tables that showed no articles were mistaken. I had the bot upload the tables again last night once the database was back up, which restored the correct information. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 10:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to comment and criticise my short article on On Goedel's Conjecture? Thank you MACherian MACherian ( talk) 18:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any opinion on the issue, but you got reverted by the same IP you reverted at [9] Figured it was more likely to be on my watchlist than yours. :) Orderinchaos 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There are 12 million registered users on WP and only one has complained about it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC).
Thanks for your comment re my addition of {{ maths rating}} to the above. I came across the article whilst on new page patrol. It had no talk page, so as well as adding the expert tag, I attempted to place a Maths project banner to the talk page, but the resultant text instructed me to add maths rating instead. If I had not done so, I cannot see how it could have appeared in the list you referred to as the article was uncategorised. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells ( talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The main reason it recurs is that it is not a coding error (therefore the developers are not likely to remove it from AWB). It has had only good effects. Rich Farmbrough, 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarlHewitt. -- Trovatore ( talk) 01:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Essays-1. We've changed the category name from "importance" to "impact" which zeroed out the table created above. Is this fixable? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Saw your edits. It was a valiant effort. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Invisible Barnstar | |
I hereby award you this Invisible Barnstar, for your behind-the-scenes contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays. You've gone out of your way to make sure our WikiProject functions the best way it can, and completes its mission of bringing order to Wikipedia Essays. We thank you. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:List of policies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:List of policies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a policy. This is an automated notice of the change for WT:Update (see User:VeblenBot/PolicyNotes for more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Words to avoid ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This is from FOM archive so you may have seen it already, but if not, it might interest you. [11] 69.228.170.24 ( talk) 08:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I intend to remove Category:Wikipedia style guidelines from all the pages as they are now better sorted in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style. Can you change your bot to monitor this category and its children ? Gnevin ( talk) 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Summary style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You might like to consider whether this should be categorised as an inverse problem. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC).
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Style ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been edited so that it is no longer marked as a guideline. It was previously marked as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I noticed your mass reverting going on. Not sure if you're using a tool to do this or what, but since it seems to be, quite literally, massive, might I suggest that you revert as a bot? (I assume there's a good reason for these reverts and won't get into that, I'm just trying to read the recent changes) -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 02:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm clueless about the methodology, so I appreciate the attention. Thanks, Bill Wvbailey ( talk) 02:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Trashing Prof. Hewitt is harming Wikipedia's reputation. Why don't you read his ArXiv publication and make peace? ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.225 ( talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Public domain ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like we have an expert editor, User:DPMulligan, willing to work in that area. But, he seems rather new to Wikipedia, so he might need some help with style etc., so the articles don't read like research papers. Maybe you can help? Pcap ping 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please see this edit where I removed a newline before a noinclude. This fixes an extra bit of white space in any transcluding pages. I see that the pages is maintained by your bot, so expect that this will be overwritten. I also believe that there will be a lot of instances of this issue. Should this result in a slight tweak to your bot code? If not, whatever other similar pages should be tweaked, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you run a query on the toolserver to find all AfD discussions for bilateral relations? These are all named along the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Country X–Contry Y relations pattern. I'm guessing the rule should be that the word "relations" appears in the title, an that it contain an ndash or -. The maintenance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations was manual and haphazard until today. There didn't keep any archives of the closed discussions. At some point they've even stopped using the list and resorted to plain old talk page canvassing to notify interested parties, which resulted in a giant bruhaha on ANI this week. Thanks. Pcap ping 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, could you also find those at 2nd, 3rd nomination? The termination should be /Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.*relations.*nomination\)/, I think. Pcap ping 13:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I nearly crashed Wikipedia with 500 huge transclusions on a page. Obviously the delsort wasn't designed for a huge glut of closed discussions. I hope User:The wubbot can handle it. Pcap ping 14:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully I set this up correctly, and the bot will come through soon? Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The reflist run is completely different I don't run that using the hacked version of AWB you insisted on. Rich Farmbrough, 12:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC).
Carl, Thanks for your message on my talk page. The essence of my argument is that Pythagoras's theorem is a special 3D case of the Lagrange identity. The Lagrange identity itself can hold in any dimensions. Seven dimensions is a special case which gives a semblance of Pythagoras's theorem, but no other dimensions, apart from 3 or 7, even give a semblance of Pythagoras's theorem.
It seems to me that the root of our disagreement is the fact that you believe Pythagoras's theorem to be a 2D affair. The problem with that is that a 2D space without the existence of a third dimension is as dificult to imagine as a 4D space. In our 3D world, every 2D plane has a perpendicular direction in the third dimension, and every rotation has a spin axis that has a direction which is perpendicular to the plane of rotation. Angle is a measure of the 'degree of rotation'. If we go into a purely 2D world, we cannot even imagine what things would be like. If we extrapolate Pythagoras's theorem into 'n' dimensions generally, on the basis that it is always a 2D affair, then we are playing around with spaces which we don't comprehend and we can neither prove nor disprove Pythagoras's theorem in those spaces. The extrapolation to 'n' dimensions merely becomes a definition.
The areal/geometric interpretation in 3D hence gives way to a metric interpretation in 'n'D. The two concepts cease to be the same thing. David Tombe ( talk) 19:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl, Your statement,
It's just a quirk of three-dimensional space that each rotation has a line as an axis.
is the keypoint in the entire issue. Pythagoras's theorem may well only apply to a 2D triangle, but it applies in a 3D space. Whether or not Pythagoras's theorem would apply in a 2D space or a 4D space is sheer conjecture.
The Lagrange identity makes it quite clear that Pythagoras's theorem is a special 3D case. It's all very well to talk about 'inner product spaces'. But when you import a concept such as Pythagoras's theorem, which contains the outer product intrinsically, you cannot cut the outer product out. The outer product will still be there. The conclusion is that either Pythagoras's theorem does not fit inside an 'n' dimensional inner product space, due to its intrinsic outer product, or else we have to change the interpretation of Pythagoras's theorem in an 'n' dimensional inner product space.
The situation, as per the sources, seems to be the latter. Pythagoras's theorem applies in an 'n' dimensional inner product space, but the interpretation shifts from 'areal' to 'metric'. The terminologies also change, such as from 'perpendicular' to 'orthogonal'.
That, in my opinion, was the purpose of contrasting the 'areal' interpration with the 'metric' interpretation' in the article. David Tombe ( talk) 10:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl, I could simplify the argument to the singular fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the special 3D case of Lagrange's identity. What would you say to that argument? David Tombe ( talk) 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl, You have acknowledged that the three dimensional case of the Lagrange identity is Pythagoras's theorem. Yet you say that this fact is 'amusing', rather than 'relevant'.
You see, even without using the Lagrange identity, I could see that Pythagoras's theorem is a theorem about a 2D triangle in a 3D space. I could always see that as soon as 'angle' is involved, then we are into the realms of axes of rotation that are lines which are perpendicular to the plane of the triangle. I could always see that Pythagoras's theorem was a theorem which requires the third dimension even though the triangle itself sits in a 2D plane. Pythagoras's theorem leads to the Pythagoras trigonomentric identity. That in turn introduces both sine and cosine, which in turn introduce outer and inner product and hence demonstrate that Pythagoros's theorem is the special 3D case of the Lagrange identity.
At any rate, we don't even need to get into the argument about whether or not Pythagoras's theorem intrinsically contains an outer product or not, or whether that outer product is required to be left outside the door when Pythagoras's theorem gets invited into an inner product space.
The argument comes down simply to the fact that Pythagoras's theorem is the 3D version of the Lagrange identity. If you think that that is merely an amusing fact, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Every debate has to end sooner or later. And I think that we can correctly sum this debate up as follows.
On the issue of the fact that Pythaogoras's theorem can be shown to be the 3D case of the Lagrange identity,
(1) One party maintained that this is evidence that Pythagoras's theorem is strictly a 3D affair, while
(2) The other party maintained that this is merely amusing but without any relevance.
It will have to be left to readers to make up their own mind on this matter. David Tombe ( talk) 09:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has recently been edited to mark it as a guideline. This is an automated notice of the change ( more information). -- VeblenBot ( talk) 02:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
See here. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)