# User talk:CBM/Archive 22

## Peer review

Hi CBM, as you are busy please don't feel obligated to respond. I contacted you previously about modifications to the bot, but decided that (as you) I don't have the time or energy to maintain a bot. Instead, I have made some changes to the peer review backend (redirected everything to one template, using parameters instead of a page name), as described here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tools. Thanks again from the Wiki community for creating the bot; the PR process is flourishing, and I hope my changes will help this process. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

## An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Original Barnstar Hi, I'am currently writing a thesis in mathematical logic. I think that the best definition of the Lightface hierarchy I could fine is the one on the Wikipedia page on Borel hierarchy. I could not find it in any book. Do you have references for this definition ? Thanks in advance Archimondain (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Look at the section on Borel codes on p. 504 of Jech's Set Theory 3rd edition. Also p. 21 of Recursive Aspects of Descriptive Set Theory by Mansfield and Weitkamp, and Corollary 4.11 in that book. I think this is all well known in the descriptive set theory community. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

## enwp10 tool

I see that CBM is away, but maybe others who watch this page could advise whether there's something wrong with the enwp10 tool? I use it to produce article lists from assessment tables for Wikiproject maintenance. Schwede66 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

## Away message

I'm just now seeing your away message. I hope real life if treating you well and that you'll decide to return in the future! Best of luck, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

## Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

## PeerReviewBot mistake

Your PeerReviewBot made a mistake, and closed a peer review that I had just opened 30 minutes before. Here's the bot's edit: [link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Thirteen_%28Megadeth_album%29/archive2&oldid=625244061]. I understand mistakes happen, btu thought I should let the bot's master know. Thanks--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but it is not a mistake. The bot checks to see if there is an open FAC (or FLC), if there is, it closes the PR request. Wait until the FAC is closed, then please try again. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Following here from the help desk, it may not be a mistake, but it sure resembles one. Can you please program the bot to leave an informative edit summary that would avoid this issue, like "Archiving peer review; articles cannot be listed for peer review while there is an open FAC (bot task 1))"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
CBM has not edited here since March and has not replied to email in months. I hope he is OK, but I cannot edit the bot. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I came to address comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/The Who/archive2 to find it had been closed yesterday evening. It's been running a while, but issues are still being addressed. If the maintainer is not around, the bot should be blocked until they are, or somebody else can take over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
First off, Peer review would literally not work without the bot archiving reviews (as no one has the time or interest to do that by hand) If WP:PR gets too big from all the transcluded reviews it literally shuts down and no one can see the reviews listed there, so the old stuff has to be cleared out. That said, the PR bot directions clearly state that it will close reviews after 2 weeks (14 days) of inactivity if they are less than 30 days old, or after 2 days of inactivity if they are over 30 days old. The latter case is what happened to your PR. Archiving the PR can be undone, which is what you did. Where's the harm in that? Even if a PR is archived and stays archived, that just means it is no longer listed at WP:PR, but anyone can still comment on it. Why block a bot that is functioning properly (following the rules set up for it)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

### Please note - correction is needed to the NPOV template, which appears to have been added by you in 2008

Hi CBM, I'm a newbie, please excuse my inexperience in Wikipedia environment. The use of the NPOV Template appears to have resulted in a lot of confusion on the Talk page of the article on MH17. Here is what I posted on that page just now. I checked through the template archive, and it appears that you added the wording which caused issues.

Thanks Volunteer Marek, I see exactly what you mean! The Template says one thing, while the WP:NPOV says another!
The Template does indeed say “The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.”
Unfortunately, the Template isn’t fully consistent with Wikipedia policies, I quote a couple:-
“Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Note the use of phrase "reliable sources", instead of "reliable secondary sources" per Template. The core policy does not exclude the use of reliable primary and tertiary sources.
The core policy is further reinforced on the following excellent link "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources", which goes on to explain the subtleties under various headings:-
• "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"
• "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"
• "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?"
The last section is definitely recommended reading for all editors on this article, because it shows that the many items in the MH17 article are in fact primary sources (either outright or by Wikipedia policy), even when we mistakenly think of them as "secondary".

The Template has been in existence since Dec 2003. The phrase “reliable secondary sources” wording was first introduced on 27 January 2008 by User CBM, who is an Administrator and mainly writes on mathematical logic, per his User page. It is a different world in the arena of academic and scientific articles, where use of primary sources is generally not helpful (quote from Wikipedia docs: " Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.", an educated person would NOT be able to understand a specialist subject, therefore not allowed).
The Template can be corrected quite easily by removing the word “secondary” and perhaps adding an explanation for different arenas, e.g. current events, scientific research, etc. Using proper Wikipedia process, of course!
It could be a simple error, or perhaps the rules have changed but the template was mnot updated. I’ll leave a note on CBM User page. If anyone knows the process for alerting Template editors, or even finding out who they are, please help me here - I'm still a newbie, and alert them to a request for Template update in line with the current Wikipedia policy.

Tennispompom (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

## Seasonal greetings

 Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

## Question on SE that might be your thing

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1085487/is-the-anti-foundation-axiom-considered-constructive/ I know you have an account there... but there's no such thing as user talk page over there. 86.121.137.79 (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just granted you four user rights (IP block exempt, rollbacker, file mover, and template editor), figuring that you might find it inconvenient not to have them if you return to activity. If you request it, I'll happily remove any of them, and I'll happily grant any of the other rights that are included with the admin package. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

## I will stay away from the article

…until you are done, but clearly, WP does care if sources are verifiable, because in the limiting case, of all sources only available to select editors, the encyclopedia is only verifiable by those creating the text (so generally unverifiable, and in a practical sense, elitist). Need I state these policies (encouraging a significant portion of broadly available sources)? Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

While you are at it, you might begin to address the general impenetrability of the key lede phrase "nonempty ${\displaystyle \Pi _{1}^{0}}$ class in ${\displaystyle 2^{\omega }}$," and especially why the specialist original article is more understandable to the nonspecialist than is this article. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding stated policies, I recommend reading the section "Access to sources" in the general policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Sources like the ones in that article *are* broadly available - which does not mean "available freely online" but rather "available at a large number of libraries". The book by Nies is not available solely to "select editors" (e.g. like an ancient manuscript in a closed special collection at one library in the world). It is available to anyone who wants to take the small amount of trouble to go to a library and read it. That is all that the policies ask for, because many of the best sources are not available online.
As for "inpenetrability", the article is a three sentence stub. If I have an opportunity to expand it to a long article, that would be the time for me to worry about it. I edited the article to address the sourcing, which is now certainly fine, as every sentence is clearly cited with page number to a reliable source. I am finished for the moment, unless changes arise that require more attention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Using the methods of recursive function theory we derive several results about the degrees of solvability of members of certain… classes of functions (i.e. degrees of branches of certain recursive trees). As a special case we obtain information on the degrees of consistent extensions of axiomatizable theories, in particular effectively inseparable theories such as Peano arithmetic, P."

My only other response is to say that the article speaks to no one, at present, except mathematicians. If you are fine with this, then this is a limitation of WP that you believe in. I believe every article needs be more understandable, from the start, to a general audience. Mathematicians have enough specialist routes by which they can arrive at answers to such questions as, "What is the… theorem.") Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of that belongs in the article Π01_class - where it already is located. I have added a wikilink to that article from the low basis theorem article now, and improved another link. But I am not planning to significantly expand the low basis theorem article yet. The material you quoted is not really about the low basis theorem per se; that result is just one result in the longer Jockusch/Soare paper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The J&S information, I understand, is not directly relevant to the article. It is, however, an example of a different approach to introducing its subject—not resorting just to mathematical shorthands, but expanding text, in an explanatory way, to broaden the audience for which (at least an abstract) is understandable—and this is a general lesson I stand by (analogizing from the original publication to this encyclopedic entry). As for sources, no, the general reader will not find most of these at her or his library. I have UChicago and other venues, so I am fine; students I have trained at urban universities, non, mon Dieu, non. Otherwise, the other general point remains—most of the sources here, if accessible, are as limited (as theorem restatements, proofs) and so impenetrable as the WP text itself, and this fact makes it the article of the limited general use that I declaim above. FInally, WP makes clear that understanding cannot be a matter deferred though Wikilink; article understanding must stand alone, and so sources cannot be presumed as available through WIkilink. If there is something at the Π01_class article that would make this article understandable, then it should appear also here. Cheers, colleague. Le Prof

Does VeblenBot no longer maintain User:VeblenBot/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment? I couldn't find anything about it on its user page, and Bitcoin which I've put up for community review hasnt been added to the list yet. Bosstopher (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been very inactive recently, and I cannot say that I am actively maintaining VeblenBot. At the same time, I have not made any changes, so I cannot say why it might have stopped. Fortunately, someone else has volunteered to maintain it (below).
The main issue I have had is finding a new maintainer, for this bot and for another bot that I used to run. I have no objection to turning the bots over to someone else, but I am not able to work on them myself right now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

## WP 1.0

Hi CBM! I hope all is going well with you and your work. All is fine here in sunny Potsdam. I was wondering if you could follow up with User:Kelson regarding the bot for assembling the English Wikipedia - his questions are in an email of 5/27. We'd like to get the handover completed. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

## Editing on tools, operating Veblenbot

Hi CBM, as you probably know I've been active on peer review for some time, including remodelling it, reworking the instructions, creating the 'tools' page as documentation for other users, and fielding answers to regular questions. Would it be possible to:

1. Give me editing permission on tools to VeblenBot

I am a regular user, have 19,000+ edits, and have developed several GAs. You probably have seen me contributing to the peer review process. I'm not exactly sure how to operate a bot, however in my experience it is down relatively often, and usually when I am online. So if that was the case I could investigate the cause and turn the bot on. This is a rather important bot as two processes (GA and PR) both depend on it. Please consider my request and I am happy to answer any questions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be glad to give you access. I do not have the ability to maintain the bot myself right now. I allowed it to run - it seemed hardhearted to just cut it off - but you will have to diagnose what the issue is. Perhaps it is due to some change with API.pm. What is your tools username? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
CBM, I'm greatful for your prompt reply! On wikitech, I am Lt910001. Did I mention I'm very grateful for your attention :)? Does an account on wikitech mean I am able to access labs? I have some coding experience, but am not familiar with the organisation of Wikitech/Wikitools. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure you have an account on the WMF tool labs. At least, I cannot add you to veblenbot. Please see https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Tool_Labs - for example, can you ssh to the login server for the labs? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am going to be traveling for the next two weeks, and I won't have access to SSH while I am gone. I would be happy to give access to a new maintainer for VeblenBot, since I do not have the time to maintain it any longer. If anyone is interested, please leave your info, and I will respond when I get back (which will not be before the 13th). — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the huge delay. I've been very snowed under at my end. I have access to tools now, but I can't actually find where the code for the bot is? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
What is your username on tools.wmflabs.org? I can add you to the veblenbot project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I am User:Lt910001 at wikitech/labs. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
OK I see where I have gone wrong. I'm waiting for tools access now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

## Veblenbot

Could you please adjust Veblenbot to deliver notices of pages being marked as part of the Manual of Style to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style instead of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style? The wikiproject is moribund.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe VeblenBot has made any such announcements recently. That bot task is defunct, and should not have been run. If that type of bot task is desired, please make a request for another bot operator to implement it and take it over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

## Re: Betacommand

As long as Betacommand is benefiting the encyclopedia, our core policy demands that we ignore rules that get in the way. Sockpuppetry or other rule-breaking of the sort pretty much always hurts the encyclopedia, if for no other reason than that we can't trust that the user will make problematic edits with yet other usernames. Here, Betacommand isn't causing problems (at least as far as I've heard) with this username, i.e. we either implement his suggestions or we say "no thanks", and I don't know of anything that's by itself problematic. If that were the case, i.e. he was wasting our time with frivolous stuff or making edits that were offensive in some way, we'd need to shut him down, but unless he's actively causing problems, the only users needing to be stopped are those who are trying to prevent improvements from being made. The goal is building an encyclopedic, not sticking it to the banned users. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not true at all - there is no "core policy" that allows banned users to contribute to the project! That argument is utter nonsense! — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

## continuing from archive 22 ...

Hi Carl,

The issue with banned users is that the process for getting unbanned is utterly insane -- e.g. the banned users get to apply annually, have to admit to and repent sins that were not committed; the actual guilty party who issued the ban is still probably an admin and will wake up and ban again. There is no recourse whatsoever, and no protection for the ordinary user. The system is stacked against the innocent, and encourages the misbehaving (miscreant) admin(s) to abuse their power. Its much better to not tangle with the powers-that-be, and instead, fly under the radar, use sock-puppet accounts, edit anonymously. You've known me for 10 years; for me, this is the #1 problem facing WP, in my opinion. Its broken, and the admins are out of control, and are mis-using their powers. 84.15.191.139 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So go do something else, and leave Wikipedia behind? That seems like a rational solution if the situation is the way you describe it. In the discussion in archive 22, the banned user in question had many chances to reform, and refused to take them - it was not a case of some "innocent" user who happened to be banned despite doing nothing wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm taken aback by your answer. Its rather shockingly cavalier. I'm trying to state that there is a serious, fundamental flaw in the current organization of Wikipedia, and your response is "why don't you just leave"? That's not part of the solution, that's part of the problem. Why the hostility? I came to visit the page of someone I regarded as an old friend, to see what's new, what's up, to say hello, and instead am met with hostility? WTF ... 84.15.191.139 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize if you aren't the person I thought you were. I suppose there is little way to know, if you wish to edit as an IP editor. I was in particular looking at the "continuing from archive 22" headline, which I may have misunderstood. If you want to contact me personally, I recommend e-mail.
There are no doubt problems with the current organization of Wikipedia, but the situation from the previous thread was not a situation where someone was banned unfairly. Unfortunately, I have run into a handful of problematic editors on the articles I work on, so when I try to think of banned editors off the top of my head, the bans seem appropriate. So there is an aspect of viewpoint that makes anonymous communication without specific examples difficult. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## Mathematical constant

Please delete this revision of Mathematical constant. I was looking at my contributions, and it looked like I moved the page Mathematical constant twice in 2006. However, I only moved it once, and it was moved back. Normally, when a page is moved, this does not happen. Please delete this edit to make things less confusing. Timo3 21:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not have administrative privileges any longer, so I cannot delete any revisions. You might want to post at one of the administrators' noticeboards. Sorry for the inconvenience, — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

## Help finding sources

Hi Carl,

I know you have a certain familiarity with the phil-of-math literature, so I was hoping you could help me find a source that gives a survey of various views on the meaningfulness of assigning truth values to axioms. I have supplied a citation at axiom, one of Maddy's early articles, but I haven't read it lately and I don't know how much she discusses other views (also it's sort of specific to set theory). I could pull in Peter Koellner and his paper on "absolutely undecidable", but again, very much about set theory. --Trovatore (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

## Lindelöf hypothesis

Hi. These two different versions give two different bounds, so I think we should distinguish them to emphasise the progress. But I am not going to argue about that, feel free to change. --22merlin (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

## Amendment request: Carl Hewitt

Carl, it would be great if you could weigh in.

Thanks! Carl (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

## Pointless revert

You know, while [1] was a rather pointless bot edit, [2] was an equally pointless revert. 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

## Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

## Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

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: 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: article talk pagesuser talk pageshis own userspaceproject discussions and dispute resolution pages specifically concerning him. 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.He is reminded that Remedy 1 of the Carl Hewitt case remains in force.He may not engage in personal attacks or make personal comments about other editors. 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)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions

## RE Hewitt edits, I need some perspective

Can you help me out here? Has Hewitt weakened PM + Peano arithmetic (P, i.e. Goedel's "system") so much that certain "critical" functions/constructions are disallowed? (via his "strongly parameterized types" whatever that means . . .; I've done some C-programming and a ton of machine- and assembly-language programming. But Hewitt's "strongly parameterized types" doesn't mean anything to me.) If so, is his severely restricted "system" -- call it "H" for Hewitt -- so weak that now "it's not the case that: 'everything that is computable in P can be computed in H'". To your knowledge is there any secondary, interpretive, written-for-guys-like-me literature available that I can consult? Thanks, Bill Wvbailey (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I will obtain a copy of the more recent book edited by Hewitt in another couple days. In his previous work on "inconsistency robustness", Hewitt works in a paraconsistent, non-first-order-logic setting. Of course, because such systems are formally inconsistent, the incompleteness theorems have limited importance for them, and there is no reason such systems should not be able to prove their own consistency. In general there is much literature on paraconsistent logic, including some references in our article. I had added a reference to Hewitt's paper twice, I think, but unfortunately someone else removed it.
Parameterized types are related to generic programming. I am not as familiar with "strongly" parameterized types, and Google has no hits when I search for "strongly parameterized types", for what it is worth. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I think Hewitt is referring to parametrically polymorphic types (and the "strong" part has little technical meaning beyond strong typing). As always, it is exceedingly difficult to figure out what Hewitt it referring to exactly. There are some long rambling threads over on lambda-the-ultimate [3]. It seems Hewitt has glued some kind of System F-like type system on top of his ActorScript language. But the people over there seem to have gotten little more information out of him, than we are able to get over here. —Ruud 14:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I am in the process of obtaining the latest volume. I read his previous paper on inconsistency robustness, which was really about paraconsistent logic, and was clear enough once I had the paper in my hands. So I may be able to see more once I look at the paper. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

## API change will break your bot

Hello,

I noticed that VeblenBot has been using http:// to access the API, rather than https:// This is going to break soon, because of changes to the API. You can find more information in this e-mail message. If you need help updating your code to use https:// , then you might be able to find some help at w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard or on the mailing list. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I handed off the bots to others some time back, and at this point I don't have access to the bot's active source code on WMF Labs. But I am sure the new developers will resolve the issue. It should not take more than just changing the URLs in the configuration, and possible changing the request type to POST, I suspect. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to update the bot owner's name in the banner at the top of User:VeblenBot.
I'll post a warning to the bot's talk page. My main goal is to keep people from being surprised on 12 June 2016. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, the bot's talk page redirect here. I'm not sure how to contact the new maintainers. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I am traveling for a few days, but I will look into it and contact them by the first week of June. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The new maintainer for the VeblenBot portion should be User:Ruhrfisch. I did still have ssh access to that code, so I replaced 'http' with 'https' everywhere I could see. The bot seems to be working after the change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

## Turing machine & doi vs. url targets

Re this edit:

{{cite journal |title=Blah |doi=10.1145/1107523.1107525 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1107523.1107525| accessdate=April 6, 2014}}
"Blah". doi:10.1145/1107523.1107525. Retrieved April 6, 2014.

The parameter |doi=10.1145/1107523.1107525 automatically produces the link http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1107523.1107525 which you then copied into |url=, resolving to redundant, identical links.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying that there was already a URL in the citation? That is what I was also saying, because providing a DOI by definition provides a URL. However, if we want to insist that the URL has to be in a URL= parameter, and that the DOI parameter isn't good enough, then we're going to need to have duplicate links. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The |url= parameter should contain the link to non-doi, non-bibcode, etc., non-permanent sources (or to a permanent source for which we do not yet have a parameter). Having a url to a doi or bibcode is redundant. For example, if |bibcode= and |arxiv= also existed in the above example, which would you use create the url—the doi or the bibcode or the arxiv?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  00:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
So if an accessdate is provided, and the access was via the DOI link, what should be in the URL field? I would suggest: nothing. But it appears you have a different preference. The documentation for Cite Journal says that the access date is not required in this situation, but not that the access date is forbidden. "Not required" means that it it optional. What URL would you suggest in such a situation? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
As I've edited: no url is required because the source is permanent and contains its own publication date. The date that source was accessed is irrelevant. You're free to deviate from the consensus guidelines if you have a good reason. I just don't see that reason here, other than WP:Idontlikeit and a misunderstanding of the nature of what a digital object identifier is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  01:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the actual edits - the article already had an access date, and you removed it, even though it is acceptable to include the particular access date that you removed (according to the template documentation). Removing the access date rather than adding a URL also seems like a case of applying "I don't like it" to an optional but permitted access date. Indeed, any particular article could have a style in which all online articles are provided with access dates. On the up side, at least I know now that, in order to prevent this sort of thing, it is necessary to pre-emptively copy some URL into the url= parameter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────── Logical step 1: |url= is intended for non-permanent sources (or to a permanent source for which we do not yet have a parameter)

Logical step 2: without a populated |url=, an existing |access-date= is irrelevant and incorrect, populates Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL, and shows the error on the rendered page.

Logical step 3: the |access-date= is removed.

Yes, providing any sort of valid url will suppress the error message and prevent the maintenance category from being populated. However, there are bots that migrate redundant urls, i.e. by migrating bibcodes-in-urls to |bibcode=, so you're just fighting the tide. Why I'm not sure.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paraconsistent logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transitivity. 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) 09:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

## Revert?

Why did you revert my layout fix edit on Tarski's undefinability theorem? Other pages with {{Theories of truth}} do not have any whitespace (an empty paragraph) before the box. --Cic (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant to do that as part of a larger edit, but somehow I clicked revert or pressed enter when it was active. I left a comment in the next edit summary on the page. There's no need to make that kind of whitespace-only edit; the content of articles still needs a lot of work, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've not seen this kind of objection before so I reverted the revert (to make the layout consistent with other articles using the same box). Of course the article needs more work, but small (and quick) whitespaces fixes can be done independently of that(?). --Cic (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

## VeblenBot down?

VeblenBot hasn't run since November 4, and there have been some updates since then. I've just manually removed Upanishads from the list of active GARs, both general and community-only—I closed it at 18:41 4 November 2016 (UTC), after the most recent run of the bot earlier that day at 13:32 UTC. There have been other changes that would have affected other VeblenBot-generated pages. Thanks for any help you can give to get the bot running again. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have handed over all my bot jobs to others. For the GAR jobs, you should contact Ruhrfisch. Best, — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Did you give bot jobs to other people involving Peer Review? GamerPro64 16:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
My main contact for peer review was Ruhrfisch, and I believe he had access to the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

## Friendly fire or something I overlookd?

With this edit, you changed

[[affirming the consequent]] to [[Affirming the consequent|affirming the consequent]] and
{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} to {{cn|date=November 2016}}.

If it was intentional, I'd like to know for why. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't it match the status after your edit [4]? I must have been looking at a previous version of the page when I started editing. The lede was too long, so I moved a bunch of content into a lower section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It does match my edit, but AnomieBOT and Yobot had their fingers in the pie, too. Fixed it. Happy editing. Paradoctor (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, CBM. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello CBM. We currently show that you are the operator on file for at least one bot account that appears to be inactive. Please see the discussion and list of bots here: Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Inactive bots over 5 years. If you are no longer operating your bot, no action is required - your bot will be marked as retired and have the bot flag removed. Should your bot be retired and you wish to revive it in the future, please request bot authorization at WP:BRFA. If you are still in control of your bot (including knowing its hopefully strong password) and wish to maintain the bot flag, please sign the table on the linked discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

## Björk and Pokémon

Hi, do you remember back in 2011 when WP 1.0 bot was changing Pokémon to PokÃ©mon and Björk to BjÃ¶rk? Well, it did it again. anemoneprojectors 15:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I don't run the bot any longer; you should contact Theopolisme and/or Wolfgang42. The source of this kind of problem is Unicode utf8 encoding. Each string must be encoded exactly once, so if a change in a library changes that way that the data is passed to the bot's code, the code may need to be adjusted accordingly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I will contact them. I didn't think to check the Bot's userpage, I just looked for the person I contacted last time! anemoneprojectors 13:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

## About relativizations of P and NP

Please see Talk:Oracle machine#Example for a particular oracle, please? for your interesting observations (8 years ago!) "about relativizations of P and NP" and my question. Thanks! yoyo (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

## On MOS stuff

Replying here, because a) it's kind of redundant with much of what's already been said over there, and b) I want that thread to archive, so Tony1's proposal to reopen the discussion cleanly in a new thread, will proceed unhindered.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish - the issue I see is that the new language that was added to the MOS might incorrectly suggest that "optional styles" only means "styles where the MOS lays out options", rather than its longstanding meaning of "all reasonable styles not prohibited by the MOS, regardless whether they are explicitly mentioned". The longstanding behavioral principle from MOSRETAIN, CITEVAR, ENGVAR, etc. is to encourage standardization on things required by guidelines and encourage stability on things not covered by them. In any case, it seems from the conversation that there's no positive consensus for the addition of the words "under the Manual of Style" without some additional qualification to continue encouraging stability in matters not mentioned by the MOS. What language would you propose? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That interpretation doesn't seem possible, and would clearly be wrong, since MoS also clearly states that stylistic matters it does not explicitly cover are left to editorial discretion. It doesn't even work logically: If MoS does not address X, either by saying "do X", "don't do X, or "do X1 rather than X2", then there is nothing in MoS at all to cite about X to begin with, ergo no "per MOS" argument could be rationally made either way. If someone is engaging in such a fallacy, that's a problem with the editor to be addressed with regard to that editor; it is not a problem with MoS. No guideline can or should (per WP:CREEP) attempt to pre-emptively account for every imaginable misinterpretation of everything in it, or all of them would be about 100 × longer, and read like incredibly obtuse legislation.

I don't have any issue with the idea of clarifying (without altering) the "acceptable"-related material in question, and already (in the same subsection, I think) specifically suggested moving the don't-editwar-over-style material (with its ArbCom footnote) to be in front of the "acceptable under MoS" material, and linking them with "In particular," then changing the end of the latter to say "without consensus" rather than "without good reason" (the "good reason" part actually pertains to what ArbCom said, not how style should be changed when it should). But that entire meta-thread has turned into a sprawling mess that will not achieve consensus on anything. I will re-raise, in Tony1's clean-slated discussion, my suggestion and will include exact draft language, if someone doesn't beat me to it. The rest of the material below is kind of supplementary.

Material added over a year and half ago, that has been stable the entire time without interpretational conflicts, and was only objected to by a party who has an long-standing anti-centralization mission against MoS itself (i.e., style should be determined at the article-by-article level), is not "new language that was added to MoS"; it's part of MoS, being deleted without consensus. Removing it and reverting its restoration pending a clear consensus for removal is against our status quo ante standard operating procedure when it comes to content disputes.

Moving on: How MoS actually works is that we don't have a rule about something unless people keep fighting about it. A rule is introduced to stop the fighting (ideally, it's one based on what academic style guides are doing, but they don't always agree, in which case something arbitrary is necessarily chosen, often based on which of the formal-English styles are most commonly found in RS). I agree that stability is encouraged with regard to style matters not covered in the guidelines; this is why ArbCom issued warnings against style-warring, and why MoS already has wording to the same effect.

What is not going to fly is someone editwarring into MoS some kind of "any style I personally think is acceptable can never be changed at my articles" loophole, which appears to be the intent of several parties involved. It's an attempt to migrate essentially the same rule from WP:CITEVAR, which was PoV-forked from ENGVAR and DATEVAR, to permit made-up bullshit. This terrible misinterpretation has been strongly defended by several parties at WT:CITE, and I fear the matter will not be resolved without taking it to ArbCom, who will surely not sustain this "I can fight forever to keep anyone from replacing my personal, wholly-invented citation 'style' no else can follow" misinterpretation. (It actually might be resolvable with a WP:VPP RfC.) In the interim, it would be disastrous to permit this territorial idiosyncrasy nonsense to spread to the other 'VAR guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

## Re: VeblenBot...

2 weeks ago I delisted an article from GA status. Today I was looking around the GA Reassessment page and realized that this article was listed as still needing reassessment at this GAR subsection. The article is Crazy Eddie, I delisted it on January 3, following all the instructions at WP:GAR but in terms of the article being removed from the Possible list, the instructions state "A bot will remove and archive the assessment from the GA reassessment page." So, I was thinking the Bot might be down or something...just generally wondering when the removal from the possible list should take place. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't manage the bot anymore. I think there have been some problems with it, long after I stopped being a maintainer, and the Peer Review project was looking for a new operator or new bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

## ISBNs and other interesting facts

Is there any open Rfc for the future of the magic links? Is there something the community can do about it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt there is much that the enwiki community can do about it. The on-wiki discussion I saw was at [5]. But as I I think it would be easy enough to start an RFC on WP:VPR to ask about the preferred solution, which could then probably lead to a bot task if consensus is established for it.
At the moment, I don't think there is even a date specified for when the change might happen (I could be wrong, but I've tried browsing things like [6] and [7]. So it would be good to find out first when/if the plan is to disable magic links on enwiki, at least so the RFC can be clear. But I think the developers do encourage us to make a transition so that there won't be any problems when the magic links are disabled. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Removing code is always the easy thing to do and I think the developers want to go in that direction. Apart from discussions in Hackathons, I 've seen not much online. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the only issue is that this will be surprising to many people, because they don't expect the functionality to ever change. So having a very clear RFC ahead of time gives something that the bot can link to in an edit summary, which should prevent some of the complaints. I thin the http to https migration that Bender is doing is a similar example. He has been very careful with it, and I think the number of complaints has been low. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that you correctly identified my bot's main problem in the edit summaries. If the edit summaries were accurate at least there would be a more specific reason fro people to complain and debate. AWB does not provide a good way for that and programming something like it is a real pain. Ofcourse, when doing the tasks one by one is easy to have a standard edit summary. In the ISBN fixes, when and if they are finally done, there won't be anything else (no general fixes, etc.) so I expect no complains as soon as we have a proper link to provide. On the other hand, CHECKWIKI fixes have been proved a real mess because the involve 40 different kind of fixes and in some of them the necessity is not clear. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some CHECKWIKI fixes that I think nobody would be likely to complain about, such as this one.

On the other hand, some really do seem cosmetic, such as [8]. The description for that one even says "MediaWiki has no problem with this". I have written parsers many times, both using regular expressions and using more complicated algorithms, and removing/skipping/ignoring white space is one of the easiest issues to deal with. Moreover, a parser would have to skip spaces anyway, because it's unlikely the bot would have fixed all the instances. So this seems to be a fix in search of a problem, instead of a problem in search of a fix. It is based on a misunderstanding of what is hard about writing a parser.

I am sure it would be possible to go through the list of CHECKWIKI items, and rather than asking "can AWB do this", ask "does this actually cause problems", and only fix the ones that actually cause problems. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The error 22 has been disactivated some months (maybe years?) ago exactly because you pointed it out. The error was in the list before I started working with CHECKWIKI. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't looking at the bot, so apologies if you thought I was. I just looked quickly at the CHECKWIKI list to try to find an example of something in CHECKWIKI that was an obviously good fix and something that seemed like a non-fix. As you can see I was linking to the toolserver pages, not to anything on the wiki. I think this is the challenge with CHECKWIKI: the quality of the items is not the same, and it is not clear how some of them entered the original list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
This is also true. The list was things chosen by Stefan for the German Wikipiedia and later reformed to fit the English Wikipedia. For instance, one of the old errors was "Category in English" which is nonsense for the English Wikipedia. I was never against a re-evaluation of the lists. Another fact is that till I contact NicoV, WPCleaner was implementing their own lists of errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

## REFPUNCT

The edit is done per WP:REFPUNCT i.e. the Holy Manual of Style that everyone has to follow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Yobot_34 goes to trial, it would be inappropriate to test that bot task. Several edits appeared on my watchlist; it appears you have been running the Yobot tasks under your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is not a test. I am fixing stuff per the Manual of Style. The BOTTASK will, if approved, have more things caught and it will save me lots of hours per day. Since you have worked with AWB yourself. You know how this goes. I open a tab to reply I keep pressing Save on the AWB window and I return back to save the page here. Telling its not supervised when I replied to you within seconds it's a mistake. Today I am in in full frustration exactly because I spent all this time saving edits in AWB. If you found ANY mistake please report it. Just report that I edit it makes no real sense. Also note that I changed the edit summary immediately after you reported that the edit was unclear. But ofourse the edit was not unclear to you because you are an experienced editor and you also read very well the pages in your watchist. And this is the big question: You should be more than happy with the edits then. Because, at least in your case, no vandalism can hide behind any "trivial" or "non-trivial" edit because you actually check the pages in our watchlist (and I really like this). Why do you complain exactly then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Some tasks may be done manually but ofcourse it's easier to do by bot. The problem here is that you obviously disagree with the edit itself and not that it was t done by a future bot. It's clear because at the same time you oppose the bot tasks and you ante them to be done without general fixes i.e. in some cases they can't be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

As long as the BRFA is pending, it is inappropriate to run that AWB task under your main account (or under the bot account). That is the point of the BRFA process: once you file the request, you are acknowledging that the task should be done by a bot, and you need to wait for the trial to be approved before you run the bot job. There is also a clear impression that you are running AWB in bot mode, or are not giving each edit much manual review, looking at the edit rate. I mentioned this at the arbitration decision talk page.
Actually, I do not object to the reference punctuation re-arrangement [9]. But, because you were also bypassing redirects at the same time, and the edit summary was so vague, I had no idea what you were actually trying to accomplish - the diff is not easy to read. I thought you had agreed not to run general fixes with these bot tasks, but it appears I was mistaken. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

On the redirects: See that I did a lot of effort to reduce them and I am underway to propose an alternative way to treat these templates. It's not my fault. I learned to leave with it because I can't deal with it right now. In the future there will be no redirect bypasssing because AWB will recognise all redirects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I want to run the bot with no general fixes is that in bot mode there is the chance that the actual fix is not done. I doubt I failed from my main account. I hear your reports about my skip checks and my edit summaries. You recognise the fact that many of the things you reported were eventually fixed.Recall that the ArbCom started 1 or days after 2 major problems were fixed (ref reoreding and whitespace between subheaders) and 1 or 2 days after I added more details to my edit summaries. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that you are of the most hard-code "if it is not broken don't fix it" persons I ever met and I appreciate your reports even if sometimes I think you are little too hard with me. It's past my bed time. Sure I type fast and sometimes I also like to impress by having multiple tabs and pressing save at the same time. Not even with AWB sometimes. But working with Wikipedia should also be fun sometimes. We should be having good time whle contribuing. Anyway... -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I do believe in fixing things that are actually broken, which is a point we have in common. And I do think you want to improve the wiki, although I would personally prefer if you kept to the parts that have stronger consensus.
Long ago, I also wrote code that could make lots of changes very quickly - something like a hybrid of AWB and BetacommandBot, which could make regex-type changes on a list of pages and save them automatically in a multithreaded way to achieve absurdly high edit rates. I wanted to see if I could reproduce the edit rates Betacomman obtained, and it was not very hard. But I feel that kind of editing goes too far, because it substitutes the opinion of the bot operator for the broader opinion of the editors who wrote each page originally.
So when things aren't broken, I do think we should let the editors of each page handle them in whatever way works for that page. So I think bot operators should get strong consensus before making changes to thousands of pages. That can make more effort for bot operators, but that is just part of the job. Unfortunately, the AWB devs historically went the other way, trying to make as many changes as possible regardless of the intentions of the original editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:NotA-Class

Template:NotA-Class has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

## March 2017

Should we just undo all the other useless edits the other users had made in our area? We told them to make new accounts (if they wish) to prevent any more ludicrous actions like these. We're very sorry, by the way. We really hope this doesn't happen again in the future... 96.246.193.252 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Undoing the edits would be a nice gesture. However, avoiding them in the future is the key point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

## Chess

Thanks for the information about chess. So is chess determined or not? Once we have a clear answer to that question, can we add that to Determinacy? The article talks about both Tic-Tac-Toe and chess. But it dances around the issue, never giving a clear answer as to whether those games are determined or not. But if this branch of mathematics doesn't address games that can end in draws, it should say so in the introduction I think. ThanksLithiumFlash (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

## Please stop putting pointless Template: in templates

This is the height of WP:POINTyness and WP:TE/WP:DE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Using "Template:" in templates is not an error or problem of any sort. It is a perfectly acceptable syntax, usable in all Mediawiki installations. It does not disrupt the encylopedia (cf WP:POINT) and in fact it does not cause any problems whatsoever. The use of "template:" is a harmless syntax variation. I suspect that we would see more of it, apart from the fact that a few bot operators have unilaterally gone around removing it where it was used, which artificially skews what we see on the wiki. If any user chooses to include it in their normal editing, more power to them.
In any case, if you find that creating new, well sourced articles such as [10] is disruptive, or changing the old ISBN magic link syntax to use the new ISBN template is disruptive, then your sense of disruption is off in my opinion.
If you commented here because of a comment on your talk page, perhaps you could mention to that user to simply find something else to do. I will be editing articles in my field of expertise, if you need to come find me. I would suggest everyone go do the same at the moment, and just leave each other in peace. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Could you explain why you carried out what seems to be a sequence of cosmetic edits such as [11]. The changes I made were all desired. The "otheruses4" name is more specific than "about", and better indicates the output that is desired (and in any case using the redirect causes no harm in any way). SImilarly, using "template:" explicitly in ISBNs helps emphasize that the magic word is not being used, and causes not problems of any kind. You edit summary "this is not cleanup and WP:POINTy" seems apropos: your edit was not cleanup, and seems POINTY. There was no error in the page, so no cleanup was needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
No, here it's you who needs to explain why you purposefully and systematically introduced completely useless {{Template:}} in templates that never that them, while you never did so in the past, while you are well aware that this goes against a convention that you yourself agreed was well-established at the ongoing WP:COSMETICBOT rfc? This is extremely WP:POINTY and tendentious behaviour. You are trying to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI that this is a variation that is actually organically used by the editing community. It is not. And finally anyone who knows and care about what a magic word is is well aware of what the distinction between those and templates, and anyone that doesn't know doesn't care.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
As I said, the syntax I am using is perfectly acceptable. I am editing a small number of articles completely by hand, so there is no "systematic" issue of a large scale fait accompli (unlike, perhaps, AWB editors who remove the same syntax - which would be impossible if the syntax wasn't organically used by the community...). Actually, the "Template:" syntax is used y others as well, e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15]. These editors are also not disrupting anything.
If you can find some actual disruption, or something that breaks the display of articles, please let me know - sometimes I do make typos, and I will fix any genuine errors that I might accidentally introduce. But, if my edits do not cause actual errors, there is nothing to complain about. I am currently working through some mathematical logic categories improving articles, adding references and ISBNs that were not yet included, copyediting and extending the article text, removing magic words per the RFC, etc. It is simply not possible to claim that this is a "disruption" to the project in any serious sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
There's a big difference between converting an existing template from {{templatename}} to {{template:templatename}}, and introducing a new template with {{template:templatename}}. I would argue that something similar to the MoS "retain existing styles" would apply in this case. Either way, I would agree with Headbomb that your edits look POINTy and really rather petty, I would think you were above such things. - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
From my point of view both options are perfectly acceptable and interchangeable. Actually, I am starting to be of the opinion that there is more clarity in explicitly using "Template:", similar to the way we often replace "cn" with "citation needed", even though the latter clutters the source code more. And I am not at all the only editor who would think to use "Template:" [16]. These editors are not being "pointy", they are simply using legal wiki syntax.
So I think Headbomb's complaint is essentially that I am not editing according to his personal preferences, rather than that anything at all is being disrupted or broken. I am not undertaking any bot-scale edits, I am merely working on the articles in my area of expertise one at a time.
Actually I am a big proponent of leaving the original style alone when there are multiple options, but in this case no such rule seems to be followed in general. So here is a good faith offer to adopt that rule of thumb if Headbomb will as well:
@Headbomb: Would Kingpin13's suggestion to leave the established version alone be OK with you? That would mean neither adding "Template:" to existing transclusions nor removing it from transclusions that use it from the time they are added to wiki text? So editors would be free to add new transclusions however they like, while respecting old ones? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No, that is a no go. Even if I were to accept that {{Template:Foobar}} was legit (and I don't), articles have that have a consistent {{foobar}} style should continue to have a consistent {{foobar}} style (that is EVERY single existing page that we currently have), not have a mix of {{template:foobar}} style and {{foobar}} style. Using your own introductions, Visual Editor bugs, newbie's ignorance, and editor copy-pasting the full Template:... from the title/url of template pages as an argument to introduce bad practice is not going to fly either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I think we will just have to go our own ways from this discussion. The reason for the consistency you perceive is that some editors have gone around removing "Template:", based on their own preference rather than any consensus against it, and frequently violating the bot policy in the process. As a BAG member, I encourage you to look into that. But their personal preferences are no business or interest of mine, and I see no reason to further their campaign. So please leave me in peace unless you find I am actually disrupting something, that is, actually breaking something rather than just using a harmless syntax variation in the process of improving the wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, please remember that the AWB rules of use do not permit edits such as [17]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
as you commented here already, I'd appreciate your comment on edits like [18] and [19] [20]. These directly violate the AWB rules of use and, when used as part of a large series of edits, also seem to violate the cosmetic edits part of the bot policy. No bot is approved, as far as I can tell, to make edits that only perform the change of removing "template:" from template invocations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
These do not violate any rule. They cleanup your WP:POINTy crapifying of articles. I could easily have done those by hand. Bots will do them in the future, and they will all use the correct {{ISBN}} version. Having a pointless {{template:ISBN}} on those article will only confuse newbies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
CBM, let's not pretend that the reason most template transclusions use the {{templatename}} format is because bots have gone around replacing all the explicit {{template:templatename}}, I think you know that isn't the primary reason. @Headbomb: For what it's worth, Headbomb, I actually have to agree with CBM here that making those AWB edits was somewhat contravening AWB rules of use, since there isn't actually an explicit consensus (or not that I am aware of) to use either one of {{templatename}} or {{template:templatename}} over the other, neither of you should be making these edits. Both of you need to realise you're both doing the exact thing you have an issue with the other doing, and stop. If one of you feels strongly about this incredibly important issue of which style to use, seek community consensus before continuing to replace one with the other. - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
(←) That leaves edits such as [21] [22] which do not change existing uses of any template, but add new template uses. As you say, it seems that there is no preference for one alternative over the other, apart from personal preferences of individuals. I'll be glad to avoid converting existing template calls to use "template:" - as I offered above - but that does not cover situations like that. Similarly, I created this article using "template:" [23], so there was no previous style for me to change... — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and I've not much to say on those edits and was not trying to "cover them" in what I said. Maybe it's up to personal preference, I don't think you can deny pretty much everybody else follows one style, however much you wish to blame bots. Edit warring over this (in either direction) is certainly not the answer (when did BRD become BRRD exactly?) . However, I would agree that failing some actual explicit community consensus (which might favour one style, if it was actually sought out) introducing new templates with your choice of style isn't really something which needs to be reverted. - Kingpin13 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

## Untitled

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Hi Carl. Is this a restrictive or descriptive clause and is there a way to tell from the text? 'Since this is required to be equivalent to the Schrödinger theory of quantum mechanics which is invariant under coordinate transformations, this property must be shared by path integrals.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_function#Schwartz_distributions 24.85.232.10 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

## Removal of halting problem proof via kolmogorov complexity

Hi,

I noticed that you removed the proof of the halting problem from the uncomputability of kolmogorov complexity. The reason given in the edit message was:

The Kolmogorov complexity argument is somewhat circular; unprovability of complexity is usually shown by reducing the Halting problem to that problem

However this does not seem true to me - the kolmogorov complexity#Basic_results page's main proof of it doesn't use the halting problem at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.172.118 (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That proof is the same proof that shows the halting problem is undecidable, simply modified to show K is incomputable instead So alluding to that proof to argue the halting problem is unsolvable is slightly misleading, because nothing about K is really being used, it's just that the proofs are similar. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we're not looking at the same proof - the main one presented in kolmogorov complexity#Basic_results is the one that uses GenerateComplexString - this doesn't rely on the halting problem at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:79E0:D:207:E459:A6FF:470E:2439 (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am looking at that proof. It uses the same diagonalization method as the usual proof that the Halting problem is unsolvable, but instead of saying "halt if the oracle says not to halt", it says "use the oracle to print out a string whose complexity is larger than the length of this program". In the end these are the same proof, so I see it as a little misleading to claim that the proof that the halting problem is unsolvable via the uncomputability of K is somehow a different proof. It's just a way of rewriting the usual proof that the halting problem is unsolvable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying they use the same proof technique which is fair enough, but I'd still say they're independent proofs. The concept of halting doesn't play any part in the GenerateComplexString proof, and the concept of program lengths doesn't play any part in the most common proof of the halting problem. 2A00:79E0:D:207:E459:A6FF:470E:2439 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

## WPCleaner

The tool has been deleted and disabled.

Do you want me to review the edits it's made for problems? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

## Concering WPCleaner and COSMETICBOT compliance...

I'd like a second opinion, given that you were the contributor that originally brought this up.

The maintainer of WPCleaner feels understandably that editors are expected to exercise common sense. However, I disagree and made some suggestions on the guithub issue linked which I felt were reasonable technical measures to prevent similar issues arising in the future, which were for the moment considered by the maintainer to be unworkable.

The issue of 'unapproved' bot-like behavior may be resolved, but the technical measures (or lack) that caused it to become an issue, have not to my post-incident satisfaction necessarily been resolved. Yes editors are expected to exercise common sense, and read warnings in tools, but how many other enthusiastic contributors really do that?

If the technical measures can't be implemented in the tool can they be implemented on Wikipedia? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:Maths acd

Template:Maths acd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

## Problem with project lists

This message has been coming up for a few hours now:

The error message is: Unknown database 'p50380g50494_data'

WP 1.0 bot revision 541, updated Sat, 6 Dec 2014 by theopolisme

I have been trying to link from the table on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scuba_diving#Assessment

Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I see the error message as well. Unfortunately, I stopped maintaining the bot some time ago, but not all traces of my username have been removed from the source code. I think there was a hardware failure on the WMF Labs server where the WP 1.0 bot runs, but apart from that I don't have any idea what could be causing the error message. The WP 1.0 bot has been suffering from a lack of maintenance, which is a pity, but since I can no longer give the time to maintain it I can understand why it's a hard sell for others. I hope that the current maintainers will be able to get it working again soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

## 2OL

"Second-order logic also includes quantification over sets and functions" — really? I was under the impression that what it actually quantifies are predicates, and that those can be used to represent sets or functions, rather than allowing sets or functions themselves. See e.g. Monadic second-order logic, which talks (sloppily) about quantifying over sets in the lead, but later clarifies that this is really over unary predicates. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a minute point, which the lede of the SEP article handles in its final sentence [24]. If you'd rather have the lede here say "predicates", it's OK with me. The previous language only mentioned functions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

## Unable to access database

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Holidays/Christmas task force for the message received from the Recognized content section. Perhaps this because the portal is inactive.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

### Recognized content

Cheers!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I am not a maintainer any longer; they must have missed that place where my username still appears. I hope the maintainers are able to fix the issue soon. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi CBM, just to let you, Peter (Southwood), and Dthomsen8 know that a query has been raised at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Error_Messages...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

## Error accessing WP Catholicism Assessment article list

Greetings, Now getting this error.

The error message is: Unknown database 'p50380g50494_data'

WP 1.0 bot revision 541, updated Sat, 6 Dec 2014 by theopolisme

Should this be reported at WP:VPT ? Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It already has...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, CBM. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

## Are we done yet?

@Sławomir Biały and CBM: How long do you two want to argue circularly about this? At some point it has to become clear that nothing, anywhere, is "banning" use of colons for indentation. All that's happening is that 3 MoS pages (including the main one) have long pointed out more accessible ways to indent, which people are free to use. Why on earth you're generating multi-page WP:DRAMA piles about this is unclear, but it badly needs to wind down. If you think it's going to win hearts and minds for you to go to WT:ACCESS and basically tell everyone who cares about accessibility that they can go soak their heads since [ta-daa!] you have a canvassed RfC full of off-topic commentary about maths markup, I really think you need to take a step back. This has no effect of any kind on math markup; and indentation methods and their accessibility are entirely outside the scope of both MOS:MATH (which is subordinate to WP:MOS) and WP:MATH.

Can you please find something more productive to do than territorially beat your chests over something that is of no concern to math presentation? No one is telling you what markup you can use. But you don't get to prevent everyone finding out that other markup is available that doesn't make blind people's experience here awful for no reason other than your personal convenience.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: I realize we've all gotten a bit testy over this. I'd like to de-escalate, and I just retracted something I said over at WT:MOSMATH as unnecessarily hyperbolic. Please consider whether some of your own stance-taking is overly dramatized.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

## Data analytics

I have seen the message "The article data analytics redirects to this article, so the term "data analytics" should appear in the lede in bold somewhere" in the talk page of the data analysis article, but there's no evidence that these terms are used interchangeably by the majority of the people. Some people claim that data analytics is a sub-field of data analysis, so they would not be synonyms. Unless you provided a citation, I would not include "data analytics" as a synonym of "data analysis".

This ought to go on the article talk page. But what you are really saying is that either data analytics should not redirect to data analysis, or data analysis should be renamed to data analytics. Those could be sensible arguments. But as long as the article structure is the way it currently is, both terms should be in bold at the top of the article. Do you have a preferred way to include it, perhaps with a new sentence? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
"But what you are really saying is that either data analytics should not redirect to data analysis, or data analysis should be renamed to data analytics", no, I am saying neither of them. It may be ok to redirect "data analytics" to the "data analysis" article (which may contain one or more sections regarding the possible or alleged sub-field), but, without evidence, "data analytics" should not be presented as a synonym of "data analysis", so I completely disagree with "But as long as the article structure is the way it currently is, both terms should be in bold at the top of the article.".

## Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

## Misunderstandings from Real number

Re the article, I want to point you to the fact that my "boldness" consisted in re-establishing a "longstanding" status before a chain of disputed edits, which lacked any form of consensus on the TP. This re-established status refers to line in a way (as explicitly stated!) that is not to my taste ("quantity along a line"). I am convinced that my edit doing this was according to the rules, and I just additionally expressed my knowledge of me being very bold, given the reputation of the contributors.

Re the TP, if you check my reply to Trovatore's claim of "... a real number ... can represent ... along the real line" (in variants) not being circular, you will find that I have no problems with the intuitive meaning of "line", but ferociously oppose to "real line" (twice emphasis of "real" mine). Simply looking up real line confirms my position.

I did not want to deal at the TP of Real number with these circumstances, which I perceive as unfounded criticizing my behavior, especially since I can agree to the new development started by D.Lazard, but factually I would like to know, where you see my wrong doings and lack of understanding. Purgy (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you put your right to ignore me in practice, adding discourtesy to allegation, so you may also feel free to delete my entries on your TP. Purgy (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I apologize if I seemed to be ignoring you. I have learned well that it is better to say nothing than to say something foolish. I was concerned that despite my attempts my response would be foolish. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)