Talk:Carl Hewitt: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:04, 28 December 2008

Skip to table of contents

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archive 1

Please delete "User talk:CarlHewitt" from the Wikipedia

Please delete User talk:CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Carl Hewitt--67.180.173.91 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done --CSTAR (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Carl--98.207.43.7 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete "User:CarlEHewitt" from the Wikipedia

Please delete User:CarlEHewitt from the Wikipedia.

Thanks,

Carl Hewitt--98.207.43.218 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't request this be authenticated somehow? Interesting.--CSTAR (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please delete User:Prof. Hewitt

Thanks, Carl Hewitt--76.126.57.246 (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making these deletions, Carl Hewitt--12.49.221.91 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't all these deletions violate the GDFL? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the expanding and ever more confusing set of principles (mis)guiding Wikipedia practice is the so-called "Right to Vanish" which I've seen applied in several cases. If Hewitt (or whomever) wants to vanish, then he/she should post the requests authenticated with a modification label in the diff associated to the account he/she wants deleted. In other words, log on as User:CarlEHewitt and make the request. This gives some evidence that the request was legitimate, namely that the requester knows the login password.

This isn't foolproof of course, but good enough.--CSTAR (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the use of multiple socks preclude the "right to vanish"? Just curious. I also think he no longer has access to some of the accounts; at least his initial explanation for the use of socks is that he forgot the password of the original account. Furthermore, some IP is requesting edits of the CH article. If that's still the same "person" as (one of) these accounts, it doesn't quite fall under "right to vanish". But I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is as good as mine. Although I am willing to be loose and allow vanishing of various "instantiations".--CSTAR (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete "User talk:CarlEHewitt" from the Wikipedia

Please delete User talk:CarlEHewitt from the Wikipedia. Thanks, Carl Hewitt--12.49.221.91 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Since the main page was deleted, this seemed uncontroversial.--CSTAR (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carl--12.49.221.91 (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete "Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CarlHewitt" from the Wikipedia

Please delete Wikipedia sockpuppets of CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia. Thanks, Carl Hewitt--12.49.221.91 (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose this falls within the purview of "right to vanish".--CSTAR (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done.--CSTAR (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure such a deletion is appropriate. If we look at WP:VANISH, it explicitly says: "The right to vanish does not extend to pages retained for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against disruption; for example requests for arbitration, requests for check user, or sockpuppet categories." That's a sockpuppet category, and Hewitt has been disruptive in the past... --Gwern (contribs) 04:51 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Possibly. I won't object to anybody reverting my deletion, but on the other hand, it may be a beneficial bargain with the devil. Moreover, the same argument you make can be made (and has I believe already been made above by Arthur Rubin) that based on the same page you cite, the right to vanish applies only to users in good standing. That characterization of the "vanishing user" I don't think applied in this case. My opinion, and possibly that of the other admins that deleted various Hewitt pages, is that WP will be better off without these pages. However, if you feel strict adherence to these rules is preferable, then by all means undo the deletion.--CSTAR (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category can be resurrected if the sock puppetry resumes. If it doesn't resume then the category is unneeded. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete article "Carl Hewitt" from the Wikipedia

Please delete the article Carl Hewitt from the Wikipedia. Thanks, Carl Hewitt--12.49.221.91 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No quick luck here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt. Feel free to nominate it again, but I doubt there will be agreement for the deletion. Mr. Hewitt, you are notable, as such, Wikipedia has an article about you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will happen. Now, deleting all the articles about the Actor Model and Mr. Hewitt's interpretation of indeterminancy seems more reasonable and computation theory seems more reasonable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Why is this page protected? There's no mention of it on this page that i can see Silent52 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the protect log, the reason is to enforce Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that still relevant though? It merely seems to show Carl Hewitt is banned from certain articles, also it's only him, not everyone. Or have i missed the point? Silent52 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right that the page no longer needs to be protected. Let's see what Ruud Koot says (perhaps you could drop him a note?), he protected the page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, we shall see what happens Silent52 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, I unprotected the page before I red this discussion beyond the first post. I think the page has been protected for too long. I hope Ruud won't mind. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate DBLP article should be removed from external references

In order not to confuse Wikipedia users, the inaccurate h at DBLP Bibliography Server should be removed from the external references. An accurate list of publications Carl Hewitt's Publications is linked to from Carl Hewitt's home page.--65.160.18.38 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carl. I've put your publications page on there, for balance, but I've left the DBLP reference because it is a well-recognized and independent external source. (It's odd they haven't recorded any of your recent publications, yet, though.) Sam Staton (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption of Wikipedia

Hewitt has published an article titled "Corruption of Wikipedia" on Google Knol that can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.240.23 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use his statement as evidence that he has no intention of agreeing to Wikipedia guidelines, and ban him indefinitely. It seems clear that he has no intention of agreeing to the consensus that he is not god. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recollection is that there was a vague consensus that he should be banned from Wikipedia, but we admins interpreted that as a topic ban.

No, perhaps the article is a relevant self-reference to be included here, if we note the obvious hypocracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Arthur Rubin has repeatedly clashed with Hewitt's students on Wikipedia. (See the appendix of "Corruption of Wikipedia.")76.126.127.45 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. I, and at least a dozen other editors (Admin and not), were supporting the ArbComm decision that Carl and his students are not allowed to edit articles about Carl and his work, because of his violations of basic Wikipedia principles. It may be that his work is important in the field of asynchronus computing, or it may not be the case. We'll probably never know, as only he and his students have ever said it is important, either here or in print. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his Turing lecture,^[1] Milner remarked as follows:

"Now, the pure lambda-calclus is built with just two kinds of thing: terms and variables. Can we achieve the same economy for a process calculus? Carl Hewitt, with his Actors model, responded to this challenge long ago; he declared that a value, an operator on values, and a process should all be the same kind of thing: an Actor. This goal impressed me, because it implies the homogeneity and completeness of expression ... But it was long before I could see how to attain the goal in terms of an algebraic calculus...So, in the spirit of Hewitt, our first step is to demand that all things denoted by terms or accessed by names--values, registers, operators, processes, objects--are all of the same kind of thing; they should all be processes."

An academic would be well advised to think long and hard about whether to participate in Wikipedia

Iin the comments section of the above mentioned article, Hewitt says

Given the Wikipedia debacles of Afshar, Connolley, Gann, Harnad, Kort, Kowalski, Lanier, etc., an academic would be well advised to think long and hard about whether to participate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.48.170 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalski hasn't said anything about his words or article being in error; in fact, he seems to have been supporting deprecation of some of Carl's comments. I can't speak for any of the others, but Kowalski has spoken for himself in this matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ Robin Milner: Elements of interaction: Turing award lecture, Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 78-89, January 1993. (DOI).

[1] Robin Milner: Elements of interaction: Turing award lecture, Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 78-89, January 1993. (DOI).

[1]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 :::Yes, I have.  I, and at least a dozen other editors (Admin and not), were supporting the ArbComm decision that Carl and his students are '''not''' allowed to edit articles about Carl and his work, because of his violations of basic Wikipedia principles.  It may be that his work is important in the field of asynchronus computing, or it may not be the case.  We'll probably never know, as only he and his students have ''ever'' said it is important, either here or in print.  — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]]  [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 01:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
+In his Turing lecture,<ref>[[Robin Milner]]: ''Elements of interaction: Turing award lecture'', Communications of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 78-89, January 1993. ([http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/151233.151240 DOI]).</ref> Milner remarked as follows:
+:"Now, the pure lambda-calclus is built with just two kinds of thing: ''terms'' and ''variables''.  Can we achieve the same economy for a process calculus?  Carl Hewitt, with his Actors model, responded to this challenge long ago; he declared that a value, an operator on values, and a process should all be the same kind of thing:  an ''Actor''.  This goal impressed me, because it implies the homogeneity and completeness of expression ...  But it was long before I could see how to attain the goal in terms of an algebraic calculus...So, in the spirit of Hewitt, our first step is to demand that all things denoted by terms or accessed by names--values, registers, operators, processes, objects--are all of the same kind of thing; they should ''all'' be processes."
 ==An academic would be well advised to think long and hard about whether to participate in Wikipedia==