Hello, I'm Spirit Ethanol. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 07:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Carl, There is an arbitration clarification request you have logged above that appears incomplete. Could i ask you to either complete the request per the guidance provided, request the amendment request is removed or if you are part way through you may request assistance with completing the request if you are unsure on specifics of formatting or required content.
If you need assistance please feel free to leave me a note here or on my talk page and we can discuss further. Amortias ( T)( C) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Should user pages be indexed?
I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Are links allowed on user pages? In the particular case of the review of the book "Inconsistency Robustness" by Professor JJ Meyer, it might be difficult for other editors to find the review without a link.
I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl ( talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Should other editors just go ahead and edit a user page?
Would it be better to have a discussion first? Carl ( talk) 21:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed your comments regarding IP addresses as off topic. The Committee has no jurisdiction regarding the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
If you restore external links to your user page or remove NOINDEX again, you will be blocked from editing. You will not be using Wikipedia as a platform to promote your work. -- Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
#wpSave {background-color:#98fb98;}
to
User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/common.css, which would make the "save page" button green while you are logged in to this account. CBM is quite right
here that it is much more secure to edit using an account.
Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The following is a draft of the proposed editing restrictions pertaining to you. This is a draft only; it is still subject to change. I'm posting it here for review because ARCA is a busy page and can be a bit difficult to follow. Would you agree to follow these restrictions, if we were to pass them or something very similar? (Note that this for the sake of providing information; please mention any specific concerns if you have them, but this is not an opportunity for negotiation.)
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
- He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
- He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
- He is permitted to edit only the following:
The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP ( Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
- article talk pages
- user talk pages
- his own userspace
- project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him.
- He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
- He may not engage in personal attacks or make unsubstantiated personal comments about other editors.
Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to propose something for inclusion you need to take the time to actually construct a context for what you want to include (this would likely include constructing at least a fully formed paragraph that provides context/explanation for the information)...so that it's potentially helpful to encyclopedia readers...but just saying, "put this quote in" is ridiculous and unhelpful.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Below is a draft section under the "Criticisms" part of the article.
Gregory Chaitin criticized Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorems for being superficial and lacking insight. For example in the BBC scientific documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”, Chaitin said that in his considered judgment,
Suggestions for improvement on above are greatly appreciated.
Carl ( talk) 15:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Gregory Chaitin criticized Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorems for being superficial and lacking insight. For example in the BBC scientific documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”, Chaitin said that in his considered judgment,
The thesis of Chaitin's criticism above is that incompleteness is a fundamental issue for formal systems that is not adequately addressed by Gödel’s proof based on his sentence “I'm unprovable.” Even Gödel himself agreed that the subsequent proof of incompleteness by Church/Turing based on computational undecidability was more fundamental in proving that there is no total recursive procedure that can decide provability of a proposition of the Peano/Dedekind theory ℕ of natural numbers. There must be an inferentially undecidable proposition for ℕ because otherwise provability of any proposition could be computationally decided by enumerating all theorems until the proposition or its negation occurs.
Carl ( talk) 15:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A. "relationship to computability" section could potentially use new/different content, particularly more specific mention of Turing and his work (right now it does properly link to "halting problem") B. the sections about the philosophical implications of the proofs could use some expansion C. the criticisms sections are mostly there for historical curiosity significance (one is about a person who thought he beat Gödel to the proof, which he didn't..and the other two are about notable figures who famously misunderstood the proofs)..
Any new content would have to be both CORRECT and NOTABLE enough to warrant inclusion (based on consensus)...But if your motivation is based on inserting material that is objectively incorrect or not notable, you are entirely wasting your time...And you do make many statements that objectively on their face suggest you misunderstand some of the material...again, I highly recommend the Nagel and Newman book.... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 17:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
from your user page, "Gödel proposed the sentence "I an not provable." as the true but unprovable sentence." In G's paper he briefly mentions in the introductory section the liar paradox and Richard's paradox as semantical analogues for his syntactical proof...only as an analogy...after the explanatory, introductory section he proceeds to lay out the entirely formal and syntactical proof...so, no, he didn't propose any such thing...this is entirely false..are you certain you understand specifically what his paper/proof is?? you seem to criticize it quite a bit for things it's not.... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Also from your user page, "However, the sentence "I'm unprovable." is not a proper sentence of mathematics because it is not grounded in mathematical objects such as integers, triangles, etc." This statement is mostly just bizarre as opposed to being wrong (that is it's so bizarre it's difficult to even comment on whether it's right or wrong in any normal sense)...but it is wrong...the first part of the sentence misunderstands what the sentence or "string" actually is and the last part of the sentence misunderstands what a formal system is/what a formal system "says"...that is the formal string you're referring to doesn't even purport to be about mathematics anyway...so if your motivation in regards to the article are along these lines, it's going to be difficult (thankfully) to get any traction.... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 20:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
What is the fundamental point you're after? Is it (A) that you think Gödel made some kind of error/that his proof is somehow wrong? (this doesn't seem to be your point). Is it (B) that you think some people tend to think it purports to demonstrate something other or beyond what it in fact demonstrates? (this could be relevant and there's even a section titled "appeals to theorems in other fields" which could benefit from expansion)...Or is it (C) that you disagree with what it in fact purports to demonstrate? (if this is the case, you're likely among the very fringe as what it purports to demonstrate is well understood, clear, and unambiguous to the properly versed)... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 12:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Carl ( talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Theroadislong, the material objected to was moved to the talk page of the article Carl Hewitt for consideration of possible future inclusion in the article. Carl ( talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
New article created that is less substantial than original one so it may pass review. Feel free to make suggestions below. Carl ( talk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Prof. Carl Hewitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Carl ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong: I reduced the content in order to make it more acceptable. What is it that I am allowed to say on the user page? Suggestions for improvement are greatly appreciated. Carl ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Reviews and even letter to the editor of CACM have been extremely important in Computer Science. For example, Church's review of Turing's article "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" was extremely influential. Also, Dijkstra's letter "Go-to statement considered harmful" initiated an important debate. Such reviews and letters can be important because they are succinct and to the point. They have an important role that is above and beyond that of regular articles (which also can be important). Sometimes the message doesn't warrant a whole article. Carl ( talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What you might mean by "Authoritative" does not seem similar to what we mean by "Reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
you shouldn't particularly be erasing comments (yours or others) from your talk page; it's against policy...it's not about not liking how a conversation goes and wanting to start afresh...the reason being it could be of note to other editors who interact with you in the future for the purpose of improving Wikipedia articles...you also shouldn't be renaming other people's thread titles...this isn't a facebook or myspace page; it's all in place solely for working on Wikipedia articles....I may revert back some of what you erased.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 02:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Hewitt, I've moved your edit request into your sandbox User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/sandbox, which is outside the article namespace, and which you can freely edit. If you have a working draft in the sandbox, you can consider re-posting an edit request with a link to your sandbox for an editor to look into. I hope this helps! Thanks. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 01:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Prof. Hewitt,
In the interest of the encyclopedia, I am ordering Hewitt & Woods 2015 for myself. My personal interest is in discovering the relationship of your work to that of Norman Foo 1994 "Convex Predicates and Induction". Foo lived 1943-2015. Foo cites Gardenfors 1990. If no one beats me to it, I could be another non-COI editor for the article on paraconsistent logic. If I turn out to be the only other editor for this effort, please be patient while I work through your material. Or, if others pop up, we could all work together.
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
...for editing at Wikipedia (as well as for all your good work within the history of computer programming). It certainly would be nice if more major professionals, both in their fields and out, would join and edit here. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Spirit Ethanol. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a " soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 07:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Carl, There is an arbitration clarification request you have logged above that appears incomplete. Could i ask you to either complete the request per the guidance provided, request the amendment request is removed or if you are part way through you may request assistance with completing the request if you are unsure on specifics of formatting or required content.
If you need assistance please feel free to leave me a note here or on my talk page and we can discuss further. Amortias ( T)( C) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Should user pages be indexed?
I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl ( talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Are links allowed on user pages? In the particular case of the review of the book "Inconsistency Robustness" by Professor JJ Meyer, it might be difficult for other editors to find the review without a link.
I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl ( talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Should other editors just go ahead and edit a user page?
Would it be better to have a discussion first? Carl ( talk) 21:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I've removed your comments regarding IP addresses as off topic. The Committee has no jurisdiction regarding the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk) 03:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
If you restore external links to your user page or remove NOINDEX again, you will be blocked from editing. You will not be using Wikipedia as a platform to promote your work. -- Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
#wpSave {background-color:#98fb98;}
to
User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/common.css, which would make the "save page" button green while you are logged in to this account. CBM is quite right
here that it is much more secure to edit using an account.
Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 04:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
The following is a draft of the proposed editing restrictions pertaining to you. This is a draft only; it is still subject to change. I'm posting it here for review because ARCA is a busy page and can be a bit difficult to follow. Would you agree to follow these restrictions, if we were to pass them or something very similar? (Note that this for the sake of providing information; please mention any specific concerns if you have them, but this is not an opportunity for negotiation.)
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
- He is restricted to a single account, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt.
- He may not edit logged out. Accidental logged-out edits should be reported promptly to the oversight team.
- He is permitted to edit only the following:
The purpose of this provision is to allow him to make suggestions on the talk pages of his own BLP ( Carl Hewitt) and the talk pages of articles about his work. Suggestions should be polite and brief and should not be repetitively reposted if they do not find consensus.
- article talk pages
- user talk pages
- his own userspace
- project discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him.
- He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.
- He may not engage in personal attacks or make unsubstantiated personal comments about other editors.
Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to propose something for inclusion you need to take the time to actually construct a context for what you want to include (this would likely include constructing at least a fully formed paragraph that provides context/explanation for the information)...so that it's potentially helpful to encyclopedia readers...but just saying, "put this quote in" is ridiculous and unhelpful.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Below is a draft section under the "Criticisms" part of the article.
Gregory Chaitin criticized Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorems for being superficial and lacking insight. For example in the BBC scientific documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”, Chaitin said that in his considered judgment,
Suggestions for improvement on above are greatly appreciated.
Carl ( talk) 15:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Gregory Chaitin criticized Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorems for being superficial and lacking insight. For example in the BBC scientific documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”, Chaitin said that in his considered judgment,
The thesis of Chaitin's criticism above is that incompleteness is a fundamental issue for formal systems that is not adequately addressed by Gödel’s proof based on his sentence “I'm unprovable.” Even Gödel himself agreed that the subsequent proof of incompleteness by Church/Turing based on computational undecidability was more fundamental in proving that there is no total recursive procedure that can decide provability of a proposition of the Peano/Dedekind theory ℕ of natural numbers. There must be an inferentially undecidable proposition for ℕ because otherwise provability of any proposition could be computationally decided by enumerating all theorems until the proposition or its negation occurs.
Carl ( talk) 15:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
A. "relationship to computability" section could potentially use new/different content, particularly more specific mention of Turing and his work (right now it does properly link to "halting problem") B. the sections about the philosophical implications of the proofs could use some expansion C. the criticisms sections are mostly there for historical curiosity significance (one is about a person who thought he beat Gödel to the proof, which he didn't..and the other two are about notable figures who famously misunderstood the proofs)..
Any new content would have to be both CORRECT and NOTABLE enough to warrant inclusion (based on consensus)...But if your motivation is based on inserting material that is objectively incorrect or not notable, you are entirely wasting your time...And you do make many statements that objectively on their face suggest you misunderstand some of the material...again, I highly recommend the Nagel and Newman book.... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 17:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In a 2005 arbitration case, User:CarlHewitt - who is the noted computer scientist of that name - was banned from editing content about himself or his own work (Remedy 1) and was placed on probation (Remedy 2). Following the case, he was found to have engaged in repeated sockpuppetry in violation of those restrictions and was indefinitely blocked in 2009.
Remedy 2 of the Carl Hewitt case is rescinded and his indefinite block is lifted. Carl Hewitt is permitted to edit under the following conditions:
Violations of any of the above may be managed by blocks as arbitration enforcement actions. Disruptive or tendentious contributions by IP users to the articles or talk pages related to Prof. Hewitt may be managed by blocks and/or protection as needed, and editors are encouraged not to engage in conversation with such users. The standard provisions for enforcement and appeals and modifications applies to sanctions enforcing this decision, all sanctions are to be logged on the case page.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
from your user page, "Gödel proposed the sentence "I an not provable." as the true but unprovable sentence." In G's paper he briefly mentions in the introductory section the liar paradox and Richard's paradox as semantical analogues for his syntactical proof...only as an analogy...after the explanatory, introductory section he proceeds to lay out the entirely formal and syntactical proof...so, no, he didn't propose any such thing...this is entirely false..are you certain you understand specifically what his paper/proof is?? you seem to criticize it quite a bit for things it's not.... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Also from your user page, "However, the sentence "I'm unprovable." is not a proper sentence of mathematics because it is not grounded in mathematical objects such as integers, triangles, etc." This statement is mostly just bizarre as opposed to being wrong (that is it's so bizarre it's difficult to even comment on whether it's right or wrong in any normal sense)...but it is wrong...the first part of the sentence misunderstands what the sentence or "string" actually is and the last part of the sentence misunderstands what a formal system is/what a formal system "says"...that is the formal string you're referring to doesn't even purport to be about mathematics anyway...so if your motivation in regards to the article are along these lines, it's going to be difficult (thankfully) to get any traction.... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 20:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
What is the fundamental point you're after? Is it (A) that you think Gödel made some kind of error/that his proof is somehow wrong? (this doesn't seem to be your point). Is it (B) that you think some people tend to think it purports to demonstrate something other or beyond what it in fact demonstrates? (this could be relevant and there's even a section titled "appeals to theorems in other fields" which could benefit from expansion)...Or is it (C) that you disagree with what it in fact purports to demonstrate? (if this is the case, you're likely among the very fringe as what it purports to demonstrate is well understood, clear, and unambiguous to the properly versed)... 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 12:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Carl ( talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
At the suggestion of Theroadislong, the material objected to was moved to the talk page of the article Carl Hewitt for consideration of possible future inclusion in the article. Carl ( talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
New article created that is less substantial than original one so it may pass review. Feel free to make suggestions below. Carl ( talk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Prof. Carl Hewitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- Carl ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong: I reduced the content in order to make it more acceptable. What is it that I am allowed to say on the user page? Suggestions for improvement are greatly appreciated. Carl ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Reviews and even letter to the editor of CACM have been extremely important in Computer Science. For example, Church's review of Turing's article "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" was extremely influential. Also, Dijkstra's letter "Go-to statement considered harmful" initiated an important debate. Such reviews and letters can be important because they are succinct and to the point. They have an important role that is above and beyond that of regular articles (which also can be important). Sometimes the message doesn't warrant a whole article. Carl ( talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
What you might mean by "Authoritative" does not seem similar to what we mean by "Reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
you shouldn't particularly be erasing comments (yours or others) from your talk page; it's against policy...it's not about not liking how a conversation goes and wanting to start afresh...the reason being it could be of note to other editors who interact with you in the future for the purpose of improving Wikipedia articles...you also shouldn't be renaming other people's thread titles...this isn't a facebook or myspace page; it's all in place solely for working on Wikipedia articles....I may revert back some of what you erased.. 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 02:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Hewitt, I've moved your edit request into your sandbox User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/sandbox, which is outside the article namespace, and which you can freely edit. If you have a working draft in the sandbox, you can consider re-posting an edit request with a link to your sandbox for an editor to look into. I hope this helps! Thanks. — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 01:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Prof. Hewitt,
In the interest of the encyclopedia, I am ordering Hewitt & Woods 2015 for myself. My personal interest is in discovering the relationship of your work to that of Norman Foo 1994 "Convex Predicates and Induction". Foo lived 1943-2015. Foo cites Gardenfors 1990. If no one beats me to it, I could be another non-COI editor for the article on paraconsistent logic. If I turn out to be the only other editor for this effort, please be patient while I work through your material. Or, if others pop up, we could all work together.
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
...for editing at Wikipedia (as well as for all your good work within the history of computer programming). It certainly would be nice if more major professionals, both in their fields and out, would join and edit here. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)