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. |
Carl, even if Magio's edits were unnecessary your reverting them is ludicrous and an utter and complete waste of system resources. Leave them be, there is no reason to revert them just because you have nothing better to do. Create an article, make a new bot, but stop this pointless reverting just because you personally don't like it. Literally no one but you cares about these, they are insignificant. Kumioko ( talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed recently that PeerReviewBot closed a peer review I had started for the article Bajkam; I believe this is the link. There had been no feedback for the review, therefore it was far from finished when it was closed. Is there any way it could be reopened so that there could be feedback? dci | TALK 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
At this point I see no reason to continue to argue with you about this Carl. I do not think that any explanation is going to convince you that Template redirects are bad because you have your mind made up. Just as you are not going to convince me they are good because I know better. What I do think though is that if the majority of the community thinks one is right and the other is wrong, whichever that may be, then that is what we are stuck with. In the end, I don't have the desire or the endurance to continue to fight this. My days of caring about what happens here are really behind me so I am done commenting. If you want to fight to keep the system as it is with thousands of broken template redirects not working correctly because a couple entrenched editors insist there is no consensus and its not broken then all you have to do is keep fighting every editor that comments. But I have commented as much as I intend to on this subject. I was asked via email by three different editors (one of which really surprised me frankly) to explain one scenario and I have done that. My work here is done. Kumioko ( talk) 01:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Carl,
Arthur has notified me that I am in jeopardy of a 3rr violation. This is harassment. My last edit involved removing the template that Arthur wanted removed. So it consists in a cooperative act. I'm furious about this, and I am justified in being so. Furthermore, the disambiguation of type-token was productive, and it was reverted. The change from abstraction to concept makes the language neutral, rather than presuming the existence of abstract objects, which is not universally agreed upon. Arthur is in the wrong, and is acting like a child. Please do not help him, and please help me get the situation under control. Greg Bard ( talk) 08:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I know variadic functions are useful in programming but have you ever heard of this in some logic context? Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this? It seems like it's at the very least not in the spirit of Alan Liefting's topic ban to be posting CFDs, even if not expressly forbidden by it, and in any event his topic ban prevents him from being able to post a proper CFD because he can't tag the categories. So I don't see that he should be at CFD at all other than to participate in discussions others have already started. postdlf ( talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I just went to do the PR archive maintenance for December at Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Maintenance and the new month is still November, while last month is still October. I will get a screen shot next in case you can't see it right away. I will also make the files by hand. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
I really do wish you would stop with the pointless reversions like this. The bot cleaned up the category and a couple other things while it was there. Even if it was not needed your pointless and petty reversion serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than to antagonize Magioladitis. If the edit Yobot did was pointless in your opinion then bring it up, don't revert it. Its just a wast of resources and completely disrespectful of others time in doing these good faith edits. Kumioko ( talk) 22:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this bot's behaviour over on fecal incontinence. A peer review was closed before anyone had carried out the review. TY lesion ( talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Damn you bots. They are too awesome. Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hello, me and user:EpochFail are working into building a predictive model to understand how social groups affect the quality of articles. We have attempted so far to use the AFT4 data as our predictor variable but we suspect there may be bias in human-reported reader quality measures. We believe that the official editor ratings may prove to be a more accurate predictor variable and therefore give us a better understanding in how social groups of editors affect article quality. Which brings me to my point. Is there any way that we can gain access in the editor ratings records tracked by the bot (e.g. if there is database through toolserver)? Also, does the bot maintain a historical record of older ratings or just current ratings for articles? Thanks in advance and please feel free to ask any questions you may have related to the project. Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I put a selection of 1,000 articles from each quality rating at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/data/RatingsData.20121208.txt . — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
You may be aware that a shortage of regular peer reviewers means that a large number of peer review pages are being closed by the bot after 14 days, without review comments. I have suggested that the interval ought to be increased to 21 days, to improve articles' chances of getting reviewed; some discussion on this particular point is shown on the WP:FAC talkpage. Would it be possible to effect this change, which can only be helpful in the present attempts to revive peer review? Brianboulton ( talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right on this one per WP:FONTSIZE. There is no need to change the font size. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy vandalism reverts indicates this may need attention [4], and [5]. Thanks. 99.135.5.186 ( talk) 00:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There was an announcement that someone would come in as an editor and start deleting this exact information today, which together with these edits [6], [7], and [8], followed by this identical edit, supports that there may be a WP:SP issue. 64.134.223.140 ( talk) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a post I just put on the WikiProject Math talk page, but I wanted to send it to you since you seemed to have knowledge of the scope/function of the bot that looks for article assessments. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help with this!
Can you please update your script (I don't if this easy or not) not to move above WPBIO, at least in the case there is a blp tag attached? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oracle machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Characteristic function ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Holidays 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come. | |
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Festivus for the rest of us! | ||
Frank Costanza: "Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way." Cosmo Kramer: "What happened to the doll?" Frank Costanza: "It was destroyed. But out of that a new holiday was born: a Festivus for the rest of us!" Kramer: "That must have been some kind of doll." Frank Costanza: "She was." This holiday season, have a fantastic Festivus! —
Theo
polisme
16:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
I'm interested in getting the data from the deleted page of Dudley M. Lynch, author of the Duke of Duval, an account of a political machine in South Texas. The nickname "Landslide Lyndon" was given to the future president when he squeaked out a victory for the US senate in 1948. This story is recounted in Mr. Lynch's book, and involved the shady political dealings of the Dukes of Duval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chester minute ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you Archived wrong peer review on Priyanka Chopra award list. This is the new peer review which has started just today and not even got any feedback. I had reverted your edit. You can help by informing Featured list candidate bot to archive the FLC nomination. Thank you.— PKS:1142 · (TALK) 11:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you leave a block notice? I saw your summary, "violation of a topic ban", but being unfamiliar with the underlying situation, I don't know what the topic ban he violated was. His recent actions included a lot of removing redlinked images, so I'm curious if he got blocked for a completely procedural edit which he might not have understood he was making. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl, the peer review bot seems to have stopped transcluding peer reviews on WP:PR. Please see here. Thanks for all you do, and in advance for any help solving this issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As one of the participants in the Bot Request about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 18:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Right - I'll go through and add 'em in in a bit. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
CBM, I've noticed something buggy going on at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality log. Three articles ( Saint Peter's Peacocks football, Siena Saints football, St. John's Red Storm football) keep coming up as reassessed on every run of the log. Can you look into that? Thanks and all the best, Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I made this Feature Request: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Don.27t_replace_underscores_from_certain_wikilinks. Please write us your opinion about it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Born-oppenheimer equation and The Born-Oppenheimer Equation for Time-Dependent Molecular Systems are two new identical articles. I'm not entirely sure why the article should be around as it appears to be some duplication to Born–Oppenheimer. I see Eigenfunctions are present and all I remember about them from college 100 years ago makes me want to curl up in a fetal position. As this is more up your alley, could you take a look. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.
I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
— Theopolisme ( talk) 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you tagged your sandboxes with the WP:Japan banners. Not sure what your intent is, but the pages show up in lists and categories of Japanese articles, such as where I first noticed, here: Category:Unknown-importance Japan-related articles. If your intent was to keep the banners on-hand as a reminder somehow, might I suggest you link to the template page? You can find it here: Template:WikiProject Japan. Hope this helps. Boneyard90 ( talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It showed up again in the Category:Unknown-importance Japan-related articles. Difficult to ignore. Can you make it importance =na ? Boneyard90 ( talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That's an April Fools' Day tradition. Where is there precedent that it's a blockable offense if it's clearly being done as a harmless April Fools' prank? I see none. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi ... I'm having a discussion with an editor here with regard to the deletion of infobox parameters that are as yet unused -- for example, date of death. I think I once saw you discuss the issue, so if you like feel free to add in your thoughts at that discussion, whatever they may be. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings CBM. I wanted to know that I made a comment at Alan's talk page regarding your recent block. I think it was an extremely poor decision and only proves that the Arbcom sanction against him does more to limit improvements to the pedia than to protecting it. It is a punishment for the sake of a punishment and does nothing to protect anything. Least of all the project. Based on a familiarity with your edits and demeanor I am certain you won't, but I encourage you to reconsider your block. Kumioko ( talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, if I may quote you, on your last comment on Curry's Paradox talk page, you said: «The argument does not have any extra assumption in it, which is why it is a paradox. The argument proves that "if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists" is actually true, by proving that if the hypothesis is true, then Santa Claus exists. The ability to prove this is the source of the paradox. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)», of which I must disagree (you can see my comments on the article's talk page). Where is the proofing ability? Where is the paradox? I came to you because you seem an expert in this theme.
Let's assume "If this sentence is true, then Germany borders China" is true. Then its contrapositive, is "If Germany doesn't border China, then this sentence is not true." Unlike other paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox (the example of the barbers is good to understand it), where the sentence may not be true nor false (the barber must shave himself, because he is a man who doesn't shave himself, and thus he becomes a man that shaves himself, so he must not shave himself), in this case it may be false, which breaks the supposed paradox. Isn't this right? I'd thank you for an answer to this, in order for me to either prove you wrong or understand something I don't understand yet, and being able to contribute to the respective article (and others related to that "naive set theory logic". JMCF125 ( talk) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yobot is not my concern, but Wikipedia's instruction creep and bureaucracy are problematic and ambiguous rules are one part of the problem. In all fairness, you yourself are calling the kettle black. NBSP Reverting valid plurals here. The NBSP matter is interesting though because while it imparts no change it does impart changes. So agree to disagree... the actual matter from Materialscientist was NBSP and Simplify links. Strange though that CHECKWIKI issues (valid as they are) and performed by an approved bot are deemed as such, even when they are backed by WP:MOS. I'd like to pick your brain instead of trying to make a battleground out of it. Specifically, what threshold counts as insignificant? What about WP:MOS which defines these errors for corrections? If a correcting a single typo is valid, why not correcting all or just one issue? NBSP is a prime example, it is of great help to mobile users, but most editors will not know how to put it in, should another editor be criticized for simply correcting it? Does the individual who neglects the correction or is unaware of it in other pages to blame? No, this whole 'insignificant edit' matter draws ire for a few reasons and those reasons typically stand in the way of improving it. Watchlist disruption appears to be the major concern, but not even bots can avoid it, and if the editors were so troubled by such changes why not AWB it themselves and fix said issues, they are all done in mass. Bots cause more issues when they selectively go about 'tasks' and avoid all others. AWB for me leads to interesting issues being fixed like on Bugs bunny where my AWB run let me catch wind of the Persondata for a fictional character which I stripped out. AWB edits are not supposed to be combined with manual edits without stating it as such because the tag always appears to be semi-automated. Though a issue which I should bring up, but I don't think you care about, the issues with the pages for things like punctuation after refs, format and links are all under MOS, and why they bother people is because there is this weird belief that edits = importance. I don't bask in self-righteous glory because I have X number of edits, but I do like the fact that I correct a lot of typos for TypoScan. I find enjoyment in correcting errors, and what constitutes a significant error is different for everyone. And once the issues are done and corrected most pages won't see an AWB edit from me for years. To keep skipping the same pages on the genfix list over and over really made me question 'why', but it was the previous discussion and MaterialScientist which gave me the impetus to try and define this. A little pushback is what I expect, nay require, to come to a decision about it. Because aren't we all liable to be accused for that little NBSP that makes a difference or making sure that italicized title exists and bolding the title of the article in that first sentence? Those kinds of edits contribute to the functionality and workings of Wikipedia just as the spider curtails the insect population. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Talk:No_worries.2FGA2_request_for_community_reassessment, do you know how to fix this? — Cirt ( talk) 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was trying to view the number of particular quality articles in the Atheism Wikiproject but am receiving the error message 'User 'enwp10' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15)'. Anything you can do about this? The lists would be very useful to me. Cheers, Samwalton9 ( talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl, do you know anything more about the status of various bots and tools now that Toolserver is down / dead? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, since you expressed some interest in zeteo in the past, I would like to draw your attention to a post concerning it, here. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 04:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Why was this peer review archived if no one replied to it? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been wanting to update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma assessment list but the update tool is taking me to an error message. There seems to be other tool malfunctions also. Could you solve the problem? Okheric ( talk) 18:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Mathematics talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju ( talk) 15:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Carl. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Log of blocks and bans you seem to be the administrator most familiar with the situation. There is a new report Wikipedia:ANI#User:AnotherPseudonym and Carl Hewitt. Could you comment on that one? Psychotropic sentence ( talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that you offered your input on that discussion.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
@Carl. What is it about Wikipedia that brings this out in people? I have never run into so many editors who are deliberately obtuse and intractable on cut-and-dry easy-to-follow issues. I know I am no saint, but at least I walk away when I'm wrong.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 11:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, he persisted, I brought it to WP:ANI, and instead of instructing Bender235 to stop contacting me (which is a simple request), the microscope is turned on me rather than stopping the harassment. If you're interested, please help at WP:ANI#I have asked a User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, user persists..
Something I wonder, since (like WP:WCC) this is something I do, too: is the "unilateral addition" of templates like {{ Persondata}} or {{ Authority control}} also discouraged by some rule I am not aware of? I'm asking because adding these is a lot of effort, and I would not want to waste my time on this if someone later reverted all of it. Then I wouldn't attempt to do it in the first place. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl. Judging by your post at ANI today you are an expert on issues such as citation variations (CITEVAR) and other kinds of style-related variations. Were there any discussions about vertical spacing (amount and syntax used) in articles and perhaps how they related to individual editors' preferences? I've asked a question at the talk page of MOS whether MOS regulates vertical spacing in some way. Perhaps you know... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linear function, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scalar ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Linear_function_(calculus)&diff=561961528&oldid=561960649
I noticed one orphan </math> left after your edit, but it is a petty matter. It is more important that you neglect to italicize variables. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I know we had our differences, and this is exactly why I draw on you for this matter. Because I think I could use someone's opinion who won't automatically agree with me out of sympathy (no offense). The thing is, in this AfD, we somewhat disagree what qualifies as "non-trivial coverage". The other two are a bit biased since they created the article, so your input would be helpful. And maybe I am in fact on the wrong track here. Regards, bender235 ( talk) 10:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Carl, thank you for your recent comments in the ongoing MOS discussion regarding quotation punctuation practices. Please note that there is also a straw poll !vote occurring further up the MOS talk page from where you made your comments. As inevitably happens in TLDR walls of text, your opinion on point may be lost in the sea of text unless you also register your !vote. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this? Cheers, — Ruud 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. bogdanb ( talk) 09:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
On 20 July 2008 (I know, a long time ago) you protected the template Template:Convert/PD/km2. I am regularly annoyed to see text produced by this template and the similar Template:Convert/PD/acre, Template:Convert/PD/ha, Template:Convert/PD/sqmi, saying, for example, "The population density was 1,286.2 inhabitants per square mile (496.6 /km2)." "Inhabitants" is totally superfluous. Can it be removed from the template(s)? Emeraude ( talk) 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I was able to remove the June category and add the August one just now (still have to do the rest of the PR chores). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Carl. I back! Not sure if you will block me for creating new article related categories so just to be on the safe side I thought I would ask you to create one for me (mind you if you block me for a year I may well get myself well and truly weaned off WP!). Anyway, Category:Divorce needs a Category:Divorce by country subcat and Category:Divorce in the United Kingdom will have to be moved into it. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Got another one - Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand has a redundant link to Crown Research Institutes. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Why have you archived my request for peer review? It has not had a review at all yet so so it seems pointless to close, it will only have to be listed again. Is there some new guideline that says they have to be closed after a certain period? Since you are on holiday (according to your page hatnote) and cannot deal with this now I am going to revert the close. Spinning Spark 16:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atan2 circle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent reassessments are not displaying well here. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I do respect Wikipedia guidelines, but do you really believe your broad reading of WP:CITEVAR was appropriate in this case? As I see it, CITEVAR is a tie-breaker in cases where two parties cannot agree over a citation style: they then keep the existing one. But if there is no argument in the first place, why prohibit a change in style? One could, as you might argue now, always seek the approval of the article's previous editors (especially the one(s) that created the existing citation style). This is, however, not always possible. The sole creator of additive model was an anonymous user in 2009. Your reading of CITEVAR therefore creates the same hassle for WP:WCC as current copyright law creates for artists wanting to use orphaned works: since one cannot ask the original author for permission, the article has to remain untouched forever. And that is just sad. -- bender235 ( talk) 07:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (P.S.: I observed that, under your reading of WP:CITEVAR, modifications of the citation style are okay, as long as they don't involve citation templates of any sorts.)
I hope at some point you might reply to this and explain your interpretation of CITEVAR. To make things easier, I might start. In its core statement, CITEVAR reads: "As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me the first part states the conditio sine qua non. Which is to say: leave the established citation style untouched if and only if there is a dispute. In other words: if no dispute, feel free to change it.
In the end, this topic is no different from infoboxes. The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, but still they are useful in the eyes of the majority of our community and therefore are widely implemented. Like with you and citation templates, they are also people who don't like infoboxes. Sometimes even entire WikiProjects. So is it a problem that I frequently add infoboxes? Do I first have to seek a grand overhaul of MOS in order to get your permission for these types of edits? You tell me. -- bender235 ( talk) 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of migrating my bot to the toolserver. You mentioned including it in a maths multi-maintainer account some time ago. What is the next step for this? -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello CBM,
This is just a courtesy visit to apprise you that I took the liberty to cite the Geo-co-ordinate data to your above article, also adding a relevant source. Hopefully, you'd like it. Best regards, ( MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk) 11:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC))
I've recently been digging around a bit as part of my research on Wikipedia quality assessment and came across the release versions and SelectionBot. One of the things I'm now curious about is how the quality scores used in SelectionBot came about. Search around on Wikipedia and reading up on pages surrounding v1.0 assessment, the v0.7 release, SelectionBot, etc... did not reveal any clues. Could you help shed some light on this issue? Cheers, Nettrom ( talk) 21:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl. Since you deal more with math pages than I do I would like to ask a question: Page is tagged with "equation needed". Reading the article for a bit I think this tag may be useless. What do you think? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why you undid the edits by
Magioladitis
here. You almost did the same as s/he: "no improvement, violation of AWB rules, and violation of NOTBROKEN".
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
-( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl!
I need a particular reference. I thought that you might know of one. I don't have access to journals, and even if I had, I'm not sure I could locate what I need (and much less understand it).
Construction (probably using Cohen forcing) of a ZF model satisfying the following for some set X:
I need it for Group structure and the axiom of choice that was accepted for main space a day or so ago. Best regards, YohanN7 ( talk) 12:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014! | |
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi CBM, I'm putting together an update end of year item re RFA for the signpost, and I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to contribute an update of your wiki generation stats for our active admins. If you have an automated way of doing it wikigeneration stats for all admins would also be really helpful, I can do that manually but it takes hours. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:21, 31 December 2013 (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. |
Carl, even if Magio's edits were unnecessary your reverting them is ludicrous and an utter and complete waste of system resources. Leave them be, there is no reason to revert them just because you have nothing better to do. Create an article, make a new bot, but stop this pointless reverting just because you personally don't like it. Literally no one but you cares about these, they are insignificant. Kumioko ( talk) 15:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed recently that PeerReviewBot closed a peer review I had started for the article Bajkam; I believe this is the link. There had been no feedback for the review, therefore it was far from finished when it was closed. Is there any way it could be reopened so that there could be feedback? dci | TALK 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
At this point I see no reason to continue to argue with you about this Carl. I do not think that any explanation is going to convince you that Template redirects are bad because you have your mind made up. Just as you are not going to convince me they are good because I know better. What I do think though is that if the majority of the community thinks one is right and the other is wrong, whichever that may be, then that is what we are stuck with. In the end, I don't have the desire or the endurance to continue to fight this. My days of caring about what happens here are really behind me so I am done commenting. If you want to fight to keep the system as it is with thousands of broken template redirects not working correctly because a couple entrenched editors insist there is no consensus and its not broken then all you have to do is keep fighting every editor that comments. But I have commented as much as I intend to on this subject. I was asked via email by three different editors (one of which really surprised me frankly) to explain one scenario and I have done that. My work here is done. Kumioko ( talk) 01:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Carl,
Arthur has notified me that I am in jeopardy of a 3rr violation. This is harassment. My last edit involved removing the template that Arthur wanted removed. So it consists in a cooperative act. I'm furious about this, and I am justified in being so. Furthermore, the disambiguation of type-token was productive, and it was reverted. The change from abstraction to concept makes the language neutral, rather than presuming the existence of abstract objects, which is not universally agreed upon. Arthur is in the wrong, and is acting like a child. Please do not help him, and please help me get the situation under control. Greg Bard ( talk) 08:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I know variadic functions are useful in programming but have you ever heard of this in some logic context? Tijfo098 ( talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat ( talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you please take a look at this? It seems like it's at the very least not in the spirit of Alan Liefting's topic ban to be posting CFDs, even if not expressly forbidden by it, and in any event his topic ban prevents him from being able to post a proper CFD because he can't tag the categories. So I don't see that he should be at CFD at all other than to participate in discussions others have already started. postdlf ( talk) 21:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I just went to do the PR archive maintenance for December at Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Maintenance and the new month is still November, while last month is still October. I will get a screen shot next in case you can't see it right away. I will also make the files by hand. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
I really do wish you would stop with the pointless reversions like this. The bot cleaned up the category and a couple other things while it was there. Even if it was not needed your pointless and petty reversion serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than to antagonize Magioladitis. If the edit Yobot did was pointless in your opinion then bring it up, don't revert it. Its just a wast of resources and completely disrespectful of others time in doing these good faith edits. Kumioko ( talk) 22:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Please could someone look at this bot's behaviour over on fecal incontinence. A peer review was closed before anyone had carried out the review. TY lesion ( talk) 20:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
Damn you bots. They are too awesome. Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 09:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
Hello, me and user:EpochFail are working into building a predictive model to understand how social groups affect the quality of articles. We have attempted so far to use the AFT4 data as our predictor variable but we suspect there may be bias in human-reported reader quality measures. We believe that the official editor ratings may prove to be a more accurate predictor variable and therefore give us a better understanding in how social groups of editors affect article quality. Which brings me to my point. Is there any way that we can gain access in the editor ratings records tracked by the bot (e.g. if there is database through toolserver)? Also, does the bot maintain a historical record of older ratings or just current ratings for articles? Thanks in advance and please feel free to ask any questions you may have related to the project. Michael Tsikerdekis ( talk) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I put a selection of 1,000 articles from each quality rating at http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/data/RatingsData.20121208.txt . — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
You may be aware that a shortage of regular peer reviewers means that a large number of peer review pages are being closed by the bot after 14 days, without review comments. I have suggested that the interval ought to be increased to 21 days, to improve articles' chances of getting reviewed; some discussion on this particular point is shown on the WP:FAC talkpage. Would it be possible to effect this change, which can only be helpful in the present attempts to revive peer review? Brianboulton ( talk) 18:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right on this one per WP:FONTSIZE. There is no need to change the font size. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Speedy vandalism reverts indicates this may need attention [4], and [5]. Thanks. 99.135.5.186 ( talk) 00:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
There was an announcement that someone would come in as an editor and start deleting this exact information today, which together with these edits [6], [7], and [8], followed by this identical edit, supports that there may be a WP:SP issue. 64.134.223.140 ( talk) 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a post I just put on the WikiProject Math talk page, but I wanted to send it to you since you seemed to have knowledge of the scope/function of the bot that looks for article assessments. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help with this!
Can you please update your script (I don't if this easy or not) not to move above WPBIO, at least in the case there is a blp tag attached? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 20:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oracle machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Characteristic function ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Holidays 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come. | |
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
Festivus for the rest of us! | ||
Frank Costanza: "Many Christmases ago, I went to buy a doll for my son. I reached for the last one they had, but so did another man. As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way." Cosmo Kramer: "What happened to the doll?" Frank Costanza: "It was destroyed. But out of that a new holiday was born: a Festivus for the rest of us!" Kramer: "That must have been some kind of doll." Frank Costanza: "She was." This holiday season, have a fantastic Festivus! —
Theo
polisme
16:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
I'm interested in getting the data from the deleted page of Dudley M. Lynch, author of the Duke of Duval, an account of a political machine in South Texas. The nickname "Landslide Lyndon" was given to the future president when he squeaked out a victory for the US senate in 1948. This story is recounted in Mr. Lynch's book, and involved the shady political dealings of the Dukes of Duval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chester minute ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you Archived wrong peer review on Priyanka Chopra award list. This is the new peer review which has started just today and not even got any feedback. I had reverted your edit. You can help by informing Featured list candidate bot to archive the FLC nomination. Thank you.— PKS:1142 · (TALK) 11:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you leave a block notice? I saw your summary, "violation of a topic ban", but being unfamiliar with the underlying situation, I don't know what the topic ban he violated was. His recent actions included a lot of removing redlinked images, so I'm curious if he got blocked for a completely procedural edit which he might not have understood he was making. Ryan Vesey 15:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl, the peer review bot seems to have stopped transcluding peer reviews on WP:PR. Please see here. Thanks for all you do, and in advance for any help solving this issue. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As one of the participants in the Bot Request about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 18:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Right - I'll go through and add 'em in in a bit. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 02:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
CBM, I've noticed something buggy going on at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality log. Three articles ( Saint Peter's Peacocks football, Siena Saints football, St. John's Red Storm football) keep coming up as reassessed on every run of the log. Can you look into that? Thanks and all the best, Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I made this Feature Request: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Don.27t_replace_underscores_from_certain_wikilinks. Please write us your opinion about it. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 22:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Born-oppenheimer equation and The Born-Oppenheimer Equation for Time-Dependent Molecular Systems are two new identical articles. I'm not entirely sure why the article should be around as it appears to be some duplication to Born–Oppenheimer. I see Eigenfunctions are present and all I remember about them from college 100 years ago makes me want to curl up in a fetal position. As this is more up your alley, could you take a look. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.
I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. ˜ danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
— Theopolisme ( talk) 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you tagged your sandboxes with the WP:Japan banners. Not sure what your intent is, but the pages show up in lists and categories of Japanese articles, such as where I first noticed, here: Category:Unknown-importance Japan-related articles. If your intent was to keep the banners on-hand as a reminder somehow, might I suggest you link to the template page? You can find it here: Template:WikiProject Japan. Hope this helps. Boneyard90 ( talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It showed up again in the Category:Unknown-importance Japan-related articles. Difficult to ignore. Can you make it importance =na ? Boneyard90 ( talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
That's an April Fools' Day tradition. Where is there precedent that it's a blockable offense if it's clearly being done as a harmless April Fools' prank? I see none. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi ... I'm having a discussion with an editor here with regard to the deletion of infobox parameters that are as yet unused -- for example, date of death. I think I once saw you discuss the issue, so if you like feel free to add in your thoughts at that discussion, whatever they may be. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Greetings CBM. I wanted to know that I made a comment at Alan's talk page regarding your recent block. I think it was an extremely poor decision and only proves that the Arbcom sanction against him does more to limit improvements to the pedia than to protecting it. It is a punishment for the sake of a punishment and does nothing to protect anything. Least of all the project. Based on a familiarity with your edits and demeanor I am certain you won't, but I encourage you to reconsider your block. Kumioko ( talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, if I may quote you, on your last comment on Curry's Paradox talk page, you said: «The argument does not have any extra assumption in it, which is why it is a paradox. The argument proves that "if this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists" is actually true, by proving that if the hypothesis is true, then Santa Claus exists. The ability to prove this is the source of the paradox. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)», of which I must disagree (you can see my comments on the article's talk page). Where is the proofing ability? Where is the paradox? I came to you because you seem an expert in this theme.
Let's assume "If this sentence is true, then Germany borders China" is true. Then its contrapositive, is "If Germany doesn't border China, then this sentence is not true." Unlike other paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox (the example of the barbers is good to understand it), where the sentence may not be true nor false (the barber must shave himself, because he is a man who doesn't shave himself, and thus he becomes a man that shaves himself, so he must not shave himself), in this case it may be false, which breaks the supposed paradox. Isn't this right? I'd thank you for an answer to this, in order for me to either prove you wrong or understand something I don't understand yet, and being able to contribute to the respective article (and others related to that "naive set theory logic". JMCF125 ( talk) 22:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yobot is not my concern, but Wikipedia's instruction creep and bureaucracy are problematic and ambiguous rules are one part of the problem. In all fairness, you yourself are calling the kettle black. NBSP Reverting valid plurals here. The NBSP matter is interesting though because while it imparts no change it does impart changes. So agree to disagree... the actual matter from Materialscientist was NBSP and Simplify links. Strange though that CHECKWIKI issues (valid as they are) and performed by an approved bot are deemed as such, even when they are backed by WP:MOS. I'd like to pick your brain instead of trying to make a battleground out of it. Specifically, what threshold counts as insignificant? What about WP:MOS which defines these errors for corrections? If a correcting a single typo is valid, why not correcting all or just one issue? NBSP is a prime example, it is of great help to mobile users, but most editors will not know how to put it in, should another editor be criticized for simply correcting it? Does the individual who neglects the correction or is unaware of it in other pages to blame? No, this whole 'insignificant edit' matter draws ire for a few reasons and those reasons typically stand in the way of improving it. Watchlist disruption appears to be the major concern, but not even bots can avoid it, and if the editors were so troubled by such changes why not AWB it themselves and fix said issues, they are all done in mass. Bots cause more issues when they selectively go about 'tasks' and avoid all others. AWB for me leads to interesting issues being fixed like on Bugs bunny where my AWB run let me catch wind of the Persondata for a fictional character which I stripped out. AWB edits are not supposed to be combined with manual edits without stating it as such because the tag always appears to be semi-automated. Though a issue which I should bring up, but I don't think you care about, the issues with the pages for things like punctuation after refs, format and links are all under MOS, and why they bother people is because there is this weird belief that edits = importance. I don't bask in self-righteous glory because I have X number of edits, but I do like the fact that I correct a lot of typos for TypoScan. I find enjoyment in correcting errors, and what constitutes a significant error is different for everyone. And once the issues are done and corrected most pages won't see an AWB edit from me for years. To keep skipping the same pages on the genfix list over and over really made me question 'why', but it was the previous discussion and MaterialScientist which gave me the impetus to try and define this. A little pushback is what I expect, nay require, to come to a decision about it. Because aren't we all liable to be accused for that little NBSP that makes a difference or making sure that italicized title exists and bolding the title of the article in that first sentence? Those kinds of edits contribute to the functionality and workings of Wikipedia just as the spider curtails the insect population. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment#Talk:No_worries.2FGA2_request_for_community_reassessment, do you know how to fix this? — Cirt ( talk) 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was trying to view the number of particular quality articles in the Atheism Wikiproject but am receiving the error message 'User 'enwp10' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15)'. Anything you can do about this? The lists would be very useful to me. Cheers, Samwalton9 ( talk) 14:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl, do you know anything more about the status of various bots and tools now that Toolserver is down / dead? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, since you expressed some interest in zeteo in the past, I would like to draw your attention to a post concerning it, here. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach ( talk) 04:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Why was this peer review archived if no one replied to it? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've been wanting to update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oklahoma assessment list but the update tool is taking me to an error message. There seems to be other tool malfunctions also. Could you solve the problem? Okheric ( talk) 18:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Mathematics talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju ( talk) 15:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Carl. Looking at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Log of blocks and bans you seem to be the administrator most familiar with the situation. There is a new report Wikipedia:ANI#User:AnotherPseudonym and Carl Hewitt. Could you comment on that one? Psychotropic sentence ( talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that you offered your input on that discussion.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
@Carl. What is it about Wikipedia that brings this out in people? I have never run into so many editors who are deliberately obtuse and intractable on cut-and-dry easy-to-follow issues. I know I am no saint, but at least I walk away when I'm wrong.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 11:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, he persisted, I brought it to WP:ANI, and instead of instructing Bender235 to stop contacting me (which is a simple request), the microscope is turned on me rather than stopping the harassment. If you're interested, please help at WP:ANI#I have asked a User:Bender235 to stop contacting me, user persists..
Something I wonder, since (like WP:WCC) this is something I do, too: is the "unilateral addition" of templates like {{ Persondata}} or {{ Authority control}} also discouraged by some rule I am not aware of? I'm asking because adding these is a lot of effort, and I would not want to waste my time on this if someone later reverted all of it. Then I wouldn't attempt to do it in the first place. -- bender235 ( talk) 18:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl. Judging by your post at ANI today you are an expert on issues such as citation variations (CITEVAR) and other kinds of style-related variations. Were there any discussions about vertical spacing (amount and syntax used) in articles and perhaps how they related to individual editors' preferences? I've asked a question at the talk page of MOS whether MOS regulates vertical spacing in some way. Perhaps you know... 86.121.18.17 ( talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Linear function, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scalar ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Linear_function_(calculus)&diff=561961528&oldid=561960649
I noticed one orphan </math> left after your edit, but it is a petty matter. It is more important that you neglect to italicize variables. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I know we had our differences, and this is exactly why I draw on you for this matter. Because I think I could use someone's opinion who won't automatically agree with me out of sympathy (no offense). The thing is, in this AfD, we somewhat disagree what qualifies as "non-trivial coverage". The other two are a bit biased since they created the article, so your input would be helpful. And maybe I am in fact on the wrong track here. Regards, bender235 ( talk) 10:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Carl, thank you for your recent comments in the ongoing MOS discussion regarding quotation punctuation practices. Please note that there is also a straw poll !vote occurring further up the MOS talk page from where you made your comments. As inevitably happens in TLDR walls of text, your opinion on point may be lost in the sea of text unless you also register your !vote. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this? Cheers, — Ruud 08:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please see here. bogdanb ( talk) 09:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
On 20 July 2008 (I know, a long time ago) you protected the template Template:Convert/PD/km2. I am regularly annoyed to see text produced by this template and the similar Template:Convert/PD/acre, Template:Convert/PD/ha, Template:Convert/PD/sqmi, saying, for example, "The population density was 1,286.2 inhabitants per square mile (496.6 /km2)." "Inhabitants" is totally superfluous. Can it be removed from the template(s)? Emeraude ( talk) 11:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I was able to remove the June category and add the August one just now (still have to do the rest of the PR chores). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Carl. I back! Not sure if you will block me for creating new article related categories so just to be on the safe side I thought I would ask you to create one for me (mind you if you block me for a year I may well get myself well and truly weaned off WP!). Anyway, Category:Divorce needs a Category:Divorce by country subcat and Category:Divorce in the United Kingdom will have to be moved into it. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 12:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Got another one - Category:Crown Research Institutes of New Zealand has a redundant link to Crown Research Institutes. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 23:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Why have you archived my request for peer review? It has not had a review at all yet so so it seems pointless to close, it will only have to be listed again. Is there some new guideline that says they have to be closed after a certain period? Since you are on holiday (according to your page hatnote) and cannot deal with this now I am going to revert the close. Spinning Spark 16:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Atan2 circle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 20:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Recent reassessments are not displaying well here. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I do respect Wikipedia guidelines, but do you really believe your broad reading of WP:CITEVAR was appropriate in this case? As I see it, CITEVAR is a tie-breaker in cases where two parties cannot agree over a citation style: they then keep the existing one. But if there is no argument in the first place, why prohibit a change in style? One could, as you might argue now, always seek the approval of the article's previous editors (especially the one(s) that created the existing citation style). This is, however, not always possible. The sole creator of additive model was an anonymous user in 2009. Your reading of CITEVAR therefore creates the same hassle for WP:WCC as current copyright law creates for artists wanting to use orphaned works: since one cannot ask the original author for permission, the article has to remain untouched forever. And that is just sad. -- bender235 ( talk) 07:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC) (P.S.: I observed that, under your reading of WP:CITEVAR, modifications of the citation style are okay, as long as they don't involve citation templates of any sorts.)
I hope at some point you might reply to this and explain your interpretation of CITEVAR. To make things easier, I might start. In its core statement, CITEVAR reads: "As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me the first part states the conditio sine qua non. Which is to say: leave the established citation style untouched if and only if there is a dispute. In other words: if no dispute, feel free to change it.
In the end, this topic is no different from infoboxes. The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article, but still they are useful in the eyes of the majority of our community and therefore are widely implemented. Like with you and citation templates, they are also people who don't like infoboxes. Sometimes even entire WikiProjects. So is it a problem that I frequently add infoboxes? Do I first have to seek a grand overhaul of MOS in order to get your permission for these types of edits? You tell me. -- bender235 ( talk) 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of migrating my bot to the toolserver. You mentioned including it in a maths multi-maintainer account some time ago. What is the next step for this? -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 16:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello CBM,
This is just a courtesy visit to apprise you that I took the liberty to cite the Geo-co-ordinate data to your above article, also adding a relevant source. Hopefully, you'd like it. Best regards, ( MrNiceGuy1113 ( talk) 11:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC))
I've recently been digging around a bit as part of my research on Wikipedia quality assessment and came across the release versions and SelectionBot. One of the things I'm now curious about is how the quality scores used in SelectionBot came about. Search around on Wikipedia and reading up on pages surrounding v1.0 assessment, the v0.7 release, SelectionBot, etc... did not reveal any clues. Could you help shed some light on this issue? Cheers, Nettrom ( talk) 21:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl. Since you deal more with math pages than I do I would like to ask a question: Page is tagged with "equation needed". Reading the article for a bit I think this tag may be useless. What do you think? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why you undid the edits by
Magioladitis
here. You almost did the same as s/he: "no improvement, violation of AWB rules, and violation of NOTBROKEN".
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
-( t) Josve05a ( c) 19:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Carl!
I need a particular reference. I thought that you might know of one. I don't have access to journals, and even if I had, I'm not sure I could locate what I need (and much less understand it).
Construction (probably using Cohen forcing) of a ZF model satisfying the following for some set X:
I need it for Group structure and the axiom of choice that was accepted for main space a day or so ago. Best regards, YohanN7 ( talk) 12:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014! | |
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi CBM, I'm putting together an update end of year item re RFA for the signpost, and I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to contribute an update of your wiki generation stats for our active admins. If you have an automated way of doing it wikigeneration stats for all admins would also be really helpful, I can do that manually but it takes hours. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)