Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Carl, please see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#Name change of project. A WikiProject was renamed, and so certain pages were moved. Unfortunately, whilst WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) respects the new name, it is now updating two tables, one of which is intentionally a redirect to the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The bot does tend to continue updating the pages in its own user space. The recommended solution to rename a project is to just change all transclusions of the old table's page name to the new table's page name, at which point the fact that the old table still exists in user space won't affect anything. All links to the table should go through the "canonical" name, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Thoroughbred racing articles by quality statistics or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Horse racing articles by quality statistics, so that the name of the table in the bot's user space doesn't matter. In principle the bot might rename the tables in its user space at any time. The reason that those tables are in the bot's user space, rather than some other space, is to make that sort of change possible by adding a level of inderection to the links.

The reason the bot does not recognize the project being renamed is that I have been concerned that someone might accidentally delete a project's categories, and I don't want the bot to automatically delete all of its data about the project based on a mistaken category deletion. So the bot will keep all the data about a project in its database even if the category for the project disappears. If the project really does need to be deleted, which is a rare event, there are commands that I can run manually to do it. In this case I removed the old "Thoroughbred racing" project from the bot's internal list of projects, which should stop the bot from updating the table, but in general that is necessary if the lin— Carl (CBM · talk) 16:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

this edit I have some woks ahead to some citations in that article, so will need that template there! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Note, I have not undone your edit still since your point was correct, but the template will be needed! . --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, do you think an image of of a page of Ramanujan's original manuscript will be helpful in the article (for example chapter 1, page 1, where he studied on Magic square etc). The image file is in Public Domain (PD-India-60 years)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that would very nice to have in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You asked "Rich, why didn't you just request access to AWB if you wanted to use it, instead of modifying it to bypass the check page?"

If you hadn't noticed the AWB development team has always been very protective (and empirically correctly) of the AWB project, and to have granted me explicit AWB access subsequent to the ArbCase would have imperilled the GF the community extends to AWB and AWB users as a whole, the which can be shaky at times.

Moreover I modified the code during the case, as part of writing up my defence, which was of course never submitted, since the adjournment I requested was not granted.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Thank you. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=496651537#Administrator_CBM_censorship_of_the_work_of_Professor_Hewitt_on_computation_and_logic_is_highly_unethical_because_CBM_is_trying_to_deprive_credit_for_published_work%2E>. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I would not have noticed that discussion. I was away for the weekend, but I think others have already addressed everything there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User 'enwp10' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15)

I got an error message when I tried to see the stub class mid importance articles for WikiProject American Revolution. ThePeriodicTable123 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sometimes the webserver does a bad job of closing its database connections (or too many people use the web tool). I killed some processes, so it will work again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the same reason why Mizsa bot keeps getting hung up while archiving. I would imagine these 2 problems are related somewhere in server land. Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Getting the same.Greg Heffley 21:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been seeing the same error message today when trying to access the article statistics tool. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the VeblenBot is making a mistake at Peer review. I added a peer review request for Grey's Anatomy, on May 28, 2012, and mistakenly put it under the Language and Literature category. I just recently noticed, and manually corrected it to the Arts category. I updated User:VeblenBot/C/Arts peer reviews to include the article under Arts instead of Lang&Lit, but the bot continues to change the "Peer review added" date to today, when it was really posted on May 28. Can you make it stop this? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That date is based on when the peer review page was added to the category - this data is stored in the database and available to bots. There isn't a mechanism for me to change that date in the database or override it. But the only consequence of having that date be a few days more recent is that the bot will archive the page a few days later than it otherwise would, otherwise the date is just informational. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For some reason there are no community GARs transcribing on the WP:GAR page. Looking at the categories there should be two Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Serbian Radical Party/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/American Civil War/2. I have a vague recollection of the Civil War one being present before. Also Reassessments from Margaret Thatcher, Kirk Hinrich, Edward Norton, Haymarket affair, Taiwan, Codex Basilensis A. N. III. and Nawa-I-Barakzayi District have not been archived properly. They are present at User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/53, but not transcluded due to size. I have tried to move them manually, but the bot keeps reverting.[1] AIRcorn (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the GA categorization; User:Geometry guy knows a lot more than I do. I can point out some things and ask a few questions, though, and maybe I can help.

• The bot is just making lists of the contents of various categories, so the way to change the lists the bot is updating is to change the categorization of the actual GA pages and then let the bot update its lists. It will never work to change the bot-generated lists without changing the categorization of the actual GA review pages.
• The main GA page transcludes a list of pages that are in Category:GAR, which the bot lists at User:VeblenBot/C/GAR. The two pages that you mention that are not listed on the GA review page are not in that category, which is why they are not being listed. It seems like the GAR category was actually renamed. That's fine, but you'll need to do two things:
  • Geometry guy can update the collection of categories the bot lists to include the new one, Category:Wikipedia good article reassessment. The templates that were used to format the GAR category will have to be copied to format the new category; see Template:CF.
  • Then someone has to update the GA pages to use the new list.
  • These things are in some way independent of the bot, as the bot just creates lists of category contents.
• Categories like Category:GAR/53 should be archive categories. You added some pages to that category when you closed the GA reviews (example). I am not sure whether removing them from the category is the right thing to do, since I don't know the general practices at GAR.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. Geometry guy has not been very active recently, but he did suggest that I ask you for permission to change some category lists (seeUser talk:Geometry guy). I am still trying to figure out how the templates, pages and categories all tie together, but do spend a bit of time at GAR so can help maintain the archives. AIRcorn (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with a password so you can update the set of categories that is tracked. I believe that Geometry guy has instructions at [2]. Basically, the bot makes a list of category contents, and the list is formatted with a template so that different things appear when the bot's list is transcluded onto different pages. The bot itself only generates the lists, and everything else is managed on the wiki. My role is just to keep the bot working. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Your WP 1.0 Bot is too good. Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to force the bot to refresh the normal project tables through http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/update.fcgi but is there a similar way to refresh User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Roads-1‎ and User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Custom/Canada-Roads-1‎? I'm just curious because the table is out of date, and we've had a recent flurry of reviews that have resulted in a few dozen GANs promoted in the last week. (The table is short 7 for Michigan alone.) We'll have a newsletter for the project being put together in the coming weeks, so it would be nice if there was a way to force an update before we add the top ten states off the leaderboard in the newsletter. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The main problem at the moment is that the toolserver database has a lot of replication lag. That tends to slow down the bot or prevent it from doing its updates. I ran the roads transport ones by hand just now, and had it upload fresh tables. The data, however, is based on the toolserver replicas of the Wikipedia databases, and since those replicas are about 25 hours behind, the tables the bot creates will also be that far behind until the toolserver databases catch up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like WP 1.0 bot has not been functioning for several WikiProjects since June 30th.[3] Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. If the toolserver is totally hosed, I could help move the bot to the labs server (although it's still not entirely reliable itself yet). Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here CBM. Its probably due to the replag the tool server has been experiencing the last couple weeks. Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem. I would be interested in learning more about the possibility of moving it to the labs server, but I will be out of town for the next week. Kaldari, I will send you an email when I get back. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Continued from User talk:CBM/Archive 19#GAR.

Sorry to keep bothering you, but I am having no luck getting in touch with Geometry Guy. The archives are working fine, but I have not been able to get the current WP:GAR nominations up and running. I added Category:Wikipedia good article reassessment to the toolserver, but it obviously needs something more done. I think the 6 pages currently there should be transcribed onto User:VeblenBot/C/GAR page by the bot. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited WP:GAR to update the name of the category and created Template:CF/Wikipedia good article reassessment by copying Template:CF/GAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning the old entries after the rename of WP:WikiProject Electrical engineering. Kind Regards, SchreyP (messages) 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Carl, you have been asked many times to stop making these ridiculous reverts of good faith and perfectly acceptable edits by other editors. This behaviour creates bad feeling in the community for no reason whatever apart from your obsession with outdated template redirects and other trivia. I am very disappointed to see that you are unable to refrain from this activity, and I ask you once again to make a superhuman effort to ignore this sort of thing. It really does no harm to the encyclopedia, rather the contrary, whereas a combative approach is deeply damaging to the community and furthers the outside perception of the community as unwelcoming and obsessed with trivia.

Yours as always, Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC).

Thanks for dealing with Teelosdomain (talk · contribs), hopefully 24 hours will do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, re your reversion here: I noticed the original categorisation ages ago and, although it breaks the rules, I thought it should stay, as the best in-joke in Wikipedia. Just my 2p worth. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed something is wrong with the toolserver security for the state links in the project Assessment tables. When I click on the links in the WPUS assessment table I got a Forbidden 403 error. Here is a link as an example. Forbidden 403. Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was a quick and dirty way for me to turn off part of the web app for a few hours today while I did some maintenance. I have re-enabled it now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks, no worries with all the problems with the toolserver of late I thought something went haywire again. Kumioko (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem I diagnosed is that someone is using a bot or something to make lots of requests to the web tool - sometimes 20 or 30 per minute. I could give them the data faster in a machine readable form, which would be more efficient for everyone, but first I have to figure out how to contact them. In the mean time the web tool may be flaky for a while. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Could it be a denial-of-service attack? JRSpriggs (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thats interesting I wonder why they are doing that. I data collection project maybe. Kumioko (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a DOS, it goes in short spurts, like a bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the issue, or at least part of it, was a web crawler from the "Tweetmeme" site. It was ignoring the robots.txt on toolserver that excludes the entire enwp10 project from web crawlers. I hard-coded something now to look for that user-agent specifically. I think this could have been part of the cause of the "too many connections" problem that people had been seeing. The crawler made 300+ connections during the minute of 10:59 today. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that or something like it is whats causing all the replag? Kumioko (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The replag is apparently being caused by a schema change - the WMF is populating an extra field on one of the tables and the toolserver databases are struggling to keep up with all the updates. I think that the Tweetmeme bot could have been one of the causes of the "too many connections" error that sometimes appears when people use the WP 1.0 web tool. And the Tweetmeme load was certainly causing other parts of my bot to fail because it had exceeded the allowed number of database connections, which was preventing it from uploading tables to the wiki. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Kumioko (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi - this peer review still hasn't appeared on Wikipedia:Peer review. Have I gone about it the wrong way, or did PeerReviewBot miss it? --Kwekubo (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

... never mind, it seems to be there now. I could have sworn it wasn't there earlier... --Kwekubo (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two possible causes of delay. One one hand, the bot only refreshes its lists once per hour right around the turn of the hour. The Trinity College peer review was detected at 11:01 UTC by [4]. The second cause of delay is caching of the peer review pages, either inside Mediawiki or in your browser. That is usually less of a problem for logged-in users, but occasionally people have to refresh the page or do a null edit to update it. But in general a new peer review should appear near the beginning of the next hour following when the review was created. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I am going to fix the algorithm right now. there is something I nedd your help: you prodiced a list of pages lacking WPBio but I could not fix many of them because the characters of the title were not in Unicode. Can you please send me a new list with proper page titles? -- Magioladitis (talk)

I was able to add WPBio banner to 44,000 out of 53,000 -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've recieved the following error message: "There was an error connecting to the database. This is most likely a temporary condition. Please try again in a few minutes. If the problem persists, please contact User:CBM on enwiki.

The error message is: User 'enwp10' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15)

WP 1.0 bot revision 340, updated Thu, 21 Apr 2011 by cbm" The problem appears persistent and I hoped maybe you could look to see if maintenance is required. thank you. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My current belief, based on the webserver logs, is that this is due to a rogue bot run by some site called Tweetmeme.com. Their bot makes lots of simultaneous requests to the tool (over 250/minute). I have been trying to tweak my code to ignore them, but apparently it is not ignoring them well enough. I will see if I can improve the code. In the meantime, they have stopped (for a while?) and the system works again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are correct; things are working again. I appreciate your attention to this matter and more so, I appreciate the helpful links you have developed to maximize our abilities. Best regards. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is still happening for me. Can you turn up the ignore power again? Rcsprinter (orate) @ 10:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

CBM, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/American football articles by quality log and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/College football articles by quality log have not been updated via WP 1.0 bot in about three weeks. Can this be fixed? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better the toolserver is backlogged by about a week so the results of the bot will only get you up to about the 1st of August give or take a little. Kumioko (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Something strange is happening with the database. I need to get in touch with one of the toolserver admins, which will ake a while. I'll post here when I have more info, but it will probably be 24 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a note on Magioladitis's talk page about the removal of date= template parameters, mentioning your response to one of his edits. You may want to clarify further what I wrote there. — Loadmaster (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page. Please continue discussion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

A stub is usually a stub at the time of its creation and remains as is until it reaches start class. So the date a stub was added most probably coincides the date of the creation of the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Just wanted to let you know that all your hard work on the 1.0 bot is appreciated. I know it's been something of a nightmare the last month or so. —Torchiest talkedits 14:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl, VeblenBot has been leaving the same size notice on the Wikipedia talk:Peer review page for several hours now. I tried the partial transclusion trick last night but that did not work. I would expect that the partial transclusion would make the page size decrease, and with supposedly only 3 bytes of space left, it seems odd that the limit has not been exceeded. In fact it is always the exact same message: "The post-expand size of Wikipedia:Peer review is 2047997 out of 2048000 bytes (3 bytes left)." so I think there may be somethiung else going on.

Thanks, as always for all you do, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot was getting a cached copy from one of the servers, and the cached copy did have a huge post-expand size that the bot was reporting. But when I loaded the page in my browser when logged out, and looked at the source, my request was handled by another server that had the right (smaller) size. So one of the servers had an out of date copy of the page. Purging the page fixed the problem - the effect of purging is to flush the cache everywhere.

When the message says there are just 3 bytes left, that probably means something failed to transclude, because the system will cut off before it crosses the limit, rather than after the limit is exceeded. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the Bot stopped updating for WP Disability in mid-July according to our log. Can you help? thanks... OttawaAC (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot has been down for a while; please see Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#WP_1.0_bot_temporarily_down_2012-8-7. I can investigate the WP Disability project in particular once the bot is back up, but until then there's not much I can do, unfortunately. The toolserver admins have been working on the underlying database issue. I will post any updates at the page linked above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index#WP 1.0 bot temporarily down 2012-8-7. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings CBM. I noticed that the bot is still copying tables over such as it did here. No big deal really but if the bots not running it probably doesn't need to do this. Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I ran it by hand, which is why it was uploading tables. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok no worries. I just wanted to let you know. I had tried to click the links and it said it was restricted so I assumed it was still down. Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I realise this is a major headache for you, and appreciate your efforts on trying to sort it out :¬)

Is there any way we can have access to the database as it was on the last day it worked, for example an old copy of it as it was on 5 July 2012 (or some such date)?

I do not have a full list of our articles, but even getting a spreadsheet with them on would help so much. A downloadable spreadsheet, or indeed a static database output that can be read into excel or access (or similar spreadsheet and database progs), would help greatly so that we can perhaps manually track our projects articles.

I will fiddle with AWB to see if I can generate a list with the correct number of articles, but so far I have failed using categories and levels of iteration :¬( Chaosdruid (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Was going to give you the Da Vinci one, but see you've got that a few times. thanks for working on the WP 1.0 bot Tom B (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey CBM, (wasn't sure where to post this - here or at User talk:WP 1.0 bot)

I'm juggling so much I haven't time to do this easily....see Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Constellations Task Force, I wonder if it can have an assessment box like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Cardiology task force for all relevant articles (i.e. all thos in the constellation task force parameter (i.e. "constellations=yes" in the WP:Astro template - these'd be constellation which would be top importance, all current constellations which would be high, all previous ones low (except Argo Navis) and there'll be bibs and bobs to add after that (non-European asterisms etc.). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't see this intially. The first thing that you need to do is to change the WP:Astro template so that the task force articles are put into quality and importance categories for the task force (e.g. Category:B-Class Constellations task force articles). I am not too familiar with the WPBannerMeta template but I believe it just takes a minor tweak to the WP:Astro template.

Once those categories exist, the bot will be able to generate the table. Unfortunately, due to problems with the toolserver databases the bot is down at the moment, but I am hoping to be able to restart it soon. I will post updates about that at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#WP_1.0_bot_temporarily_down_2012-8-7. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(belatedly) ok, I will try to do that above sometime when I get a minute. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why was this closed (Wikipedia:Peer review/NK Maribor/archive2) before the article even received a Peer review?Ratipok (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The criteria for archiving are given at the top of [[5]]. Near the bottom is the log entry for this peer review; it shows the reason is that there were no comments in 14 days. It is very rare that no comments at all are provided in 14 days. I would recommend un-archiving the review and leaving at note at WT:PR asking for someone to comment on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Petros.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Greetings Carl, I just noticed that you were doing some pointless reversions again. I know that you have a problem with some editors efforts standardize and clean things up but reverting changes that you feel are "pointless" are also just as much or more pointless. One example is the one you did here. It can be argued whether that edit was needed but reverting it on the grounds it wasn't needed just wastes system resources and clutters up the articles edit history. There are very good reasons for standardizing how things are displayed, used and discussed whether you personally agree with them or not. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If nobody reverts such edits, then it begins to appear that they have consensus. The claim that the edit in question was "standardizing" is meaningless because there is no controlling standard that indicates how the source of the page needs to be formatted; it could be argued equally well that the page was already in standard form before it was edited. To go further, if there was a controlling standard, we would have a bot normalize all the redirects once and for all - the fact that someone is doing it manually is evidence that there is not actually consensus behind their edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Except the fact that all the documentation for all those Redirect templates like the one above say the template should go on the same line as the redirect, not the next line. So since we are there already fixing that, why not make the redirect upper case like it should be. And there is a consensus. That's why all the documentation has #REDIRECT in upper case not #redirect. I would further state that since the vast majority of redirects are formatted in the #REDIRECT format rather than #redirect and that the toolbox that Wikipedia uses that allows the user to easily add #REDIRECT is in upper case vice lower case displays the consensus. Also, just because there is no bot doing it is a really poor arguement. There are hardly any bots being requested these days. BAG takes forever to approve them and when they do they rarely approve bots that do actual edits. Archiving talk pages, generating lists, generating statistics, etc. are the types of tasks they are approving bots for so that doesn't mean there is no consensus, it just means that there is no bot. There is no' correlation to bots and consensus and you should know better than to postulate there is. Kumioko (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite disagree: if there is consensus to standardize something in this way, there is also consensus that will allow BAG to approve a bot. The main reason that BAG delays approving some tasks is that there is no clear consensus behind the task, or there is vagueness in the specification. I have never had a problem getting BAG approval for a task that I could demonstrate consensus for. The BAG members are generally very reasonable people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no point in arguing it. We both have diametrically opposing views and it is unlikely that either of us will convince the other so although at one time I would have been happy to argue this inperpetuity I concede that I don't have the time or desire for a long and drawn out debate of the symantics of who, why amd how at this time. I would point to one fact though and that is that you don't really run any bots that edit, which isn't to say they aren't needed or important. One gathers stats for projects, one does peer reviews and the other does some lists and misc tasks. None as far as I know, edit articles or attempt to improve them in any way. So to say you never had trouble getting approval is somewhat misleading. The BAG has a general history of disapproval for bots that do edits and most editors who were willing to try, have been systematically blocked, banned, restricted or pushed out. Kumioko (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hiyo. There seems to be an error with veblenbot, regarding Wikipedia talk:Update#Wikipedia:Consensus no longer marked as a policy. I've left a note there with a hypothesis (and possibly the same thing is going on with other categories? I'm not sure if any/many others were renamed from singular to plural. That one was in February 2012 (and some recent editwars confusion at WP:CON led to the 10month old rollback & then revert, which is why veblen picked up those 2 changes)).

This note is to point ya there, and to thank you for being awesome! ttfn -- Quiddity (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the bot does not know when people change the names of the categories, and nobody informed me that they had been changed. I will go through and update the list this weekend. Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I have written a proposal for a new article. It's about the equivalence of AC and the existence of a group structure on every set. It's on my talk page. (It's about the only thing there, so you'll be able to locate it. Lead + two sections + references) I'd like to place it in the AC category if it's good enough, and perhaps link it from the AC article. Perhaps it should be in category Group too.

I think that the first section (Group Structure -> AC) is kind of neat. Well, perhaps not my presentation of it, but the main reasoning, which I think come from the second reference.

I'd be happy if you, Trovatore and JRSpriggs (and anybody else you feel ought to) could have a look at it. It's not in mint condition yet, but I don't want to spend too many more hours on it in case you all say booooooo. Keep in mind that I am just a layman.

Best Regards, Johan Nystrom YohanN7 (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Carl: I just did a Google search on my full name. I found that there were very few mentions. This did not surprise me. However, the second mention was a viscous (and totally baseless) personal attack on me which appeared on Talk:United States debt-ceiling crisis. Using your administrative powers, could you please delete that section of talk including hiding the revision history entries which include it. Thanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I used the revision hiding system that is recommended now. The revisions that had the content are no longer publicly visible. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That was a good job. Thank you again. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Sergei Akbarov. If I understand this system correctly, you are one of those who edited the article "axiom of global choice". Is this true? If yes, then I want to draw your attention to the fact that the books listed as references in this article tell nothing about what is called "strong form of the axiom of global choice" there. Moreover, this notion seems to be senseless, at least when I asked people about it at a mathematical forum, nobody could give a convincing reference. I think there is a necessity to edit this article for putting there a correct reference (or eliminating what is written about the "strong form of the axiom of global choice"). Please, answer me as soon as possible, because I am writing a paper on category theory, and I need either to use this tool or to think up somethinng instead of it. Eozhik (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I added two general references, but nothing on what that article calls the strong axiom of global choice. It was added in this edit [6]. Since no reference was provided for it, and none seems to be known, it seems reasonable to remove it, so I will do that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Carl, to tell the thruth, if there are no confirmations that the "strong form of the axiom of global choice" has sense, then we come to a situation where there is no difference between the subject of this article ("weak form of the axiom of choice") and the subject of the article devoted to [axiom of choice]. I suppose there is a procedure of merging two articles, maybe we need to consider it. However, from the discussion at MathOverflow I got an impression that there can exist some sources where the "strong form of the axiom of global choice" is accurately introduced... Maybe the best solution is to inform the people who inserted the "strong form" into this article that they should find proper references, and only if they will not be able to do this, only after that to merge these articles... Actually, I do not know the customs in Wikipedia... Eozhik (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

1. If Arithmetic is consistent, can it be "first-order complete" - i.e. such that proves or disproves every first order arithmetical proposition, provided that the Axiom of Induction is formulated in its (original Peano's) second-order version? i.e. .
2. As far as my first question is concerned: does it matter, whether the domain over which the first quantifier (in the Axion of Induction formulated above) ranges - is the set of all first order formulas (having one free variable) - or the set of all properties (whether definable or not)? 77.126.199.194 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you, I, and Carl have been all over this. Can you say what's new here that didn't get answered last time? I thought the answers we gave you were pretty exhaustive. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already received your clear answer - which referred to Peano's system (I'd asked you about) - and which gave a positive answer to my first quesion (if and only if - the domain over which the first quantifier ranges - is the set of all properties whether definable or not, provided that every "provability" is understood as an ability to be "logically implied", i.e. as an ineffecive provability). However, I suspect Carl's answer may be different, because they explained that when they were talking about a "complete and not effective" system - they only referred to True arithmetic - rather than to Peano's arithmetic (incl. the Axiom of Induction) about which I'd asked you. 77.126.199.194 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Carl's answer will be different only because he declines to equate "second-order provable" with "logically implied". He will agree that, using full second-order semantics, every such statement or its negation is logically implied by Peano's original system (with P ranging over all predicates, not just definable ones). --Trovatore (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. 77.126.199.194 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

@Trovatore: yes, but - before Carl said that (clear and loud), I couldn't be sure that was what they thought (although I did know that was what you thought). Note that they had referred on your talk page to the standard model only (when they stated it's ineffectively "complete"). Btw, what do you think about my last question (see below)? 77.126.199.194 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure you are going about this in the right way. I am afraid that starting with questions and then asking leads to just a wider and wider circle of confusion rather than to more clarity. I'd recommend, instead, starting at the beginning with things that are understood and working forward. I would recommend Peter Smith's book An Introduction to Gödel's theorems which is both mathematically correct and written in a nice way. It has a lot of short chapters; in Chapter 22 he discusses second-order semantics in detail, and I think that can explain what is going on. But to understand it you have to also understand what happens in normal first-order semantics, because that is crucial as a reference point to figure out what is happening in second-order semantics, and because the proofs of things in second-order semantics sometimes are based on the proofs for first-order semantics. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendation. Unfortunately, I haven't got Peter Smith's book, and I suspect I wouldn't have had the time required for reading that book (or even the 22nd chapter only) - if I had achieved it. I don't want to waste your time in aswering more and more questions intended to study the whole topic; My aim is not to learn the whole topic, but rather to get your specific personal opinion about my two specific questions. Very specific questions. If you think my two specific questions are not clear enough, or may have some different answers dependent on different cases, then please say that, and I'll thank you again. If you think each of my two questions is clear enough and has one simple unambiguous answer - then I will be very glad to hear it. Anyways, I'm not going to try to get into the whole topic, because this is not what I'm looking for. All the best, 77.126.199.194 (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean by "Arithmetic" but the first incompleteness theorem shows that there is no effective, sound proof system which proves every axiom of first-order Peano arithmetic and is also complete in the sense that it proves or disproves every sentence in the language of first-order arithmetic. It makes no difference if the proof system is also able to prove some formulas of second-order arithmetic or set theory or any other system; it is impossible for it to be complete even for sentences of first-order arithmetic. It makes no difference how the induction axiom is written as long as the criteria above are met.

Of course the second-order Peano axioms do logically imply every sentence of second-order arithmetic, or its negation, when we use full second-order semantics. This is not the case if we use the semantics in which the set quantifiers range only over first-order definable sets. It is a standard result that every model of first-order Peano arithmetic extends to a model of second-order arithmetic in which the sets are exactly the ones that are definable over the original model of first-order Peano arithmetic and the extended model satisfies the second-order Peano axioms including the set induction axiom . — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Now it's clear (because your second section refers directly to the Peano system rather than to the standard model only). Thank you. Btw, do you think your first statement (in your second section) about full second order semantics holds also when the domain of sets (over which the set quantifiers range) is L, i.e. when it's the set-universe obtained by ZF + the axiom of constructibility? 77.126.199.194 (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Still adding |nested= which is not used anymore. Banners are autodetected now and |nested= is obsolete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I found the problem in your script. Nested is not a valid parameter. It has completely been removed 3 years ago from all code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't if it possible to change the script not to move above {{Talk header}} like you did here. Check WP:TPL. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I can definitely look for the talk header to make sure is ends up where it belongs; the script loads the talk page when it is done so I can look at it to detect these things.

There is nothing wrong with the "nested=" parameter as far as I can see; even if it doesn't do anything special in the code it can still record whether the template is inside a banner shell. In any case there is no reason not to use it, since Mediawiki will not care if it is included. I suppose that someone could go through and add nested=yes to all the maths rating invocations that are inside a banner shell, but I don't have time to do that right now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Carl, just because I could go through and add |123ABC=Yes doesn't mean I should even if it didn't change the way the Mediawiki software displays the banner. There are a lot of good things that can be tracked and are useful but tracking whether or not a banner is nested, just for the sake of it, isn't one of them. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course wikiproject templates are not standardized, each project can do its own thing in terms of parameters. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you imply that the wikiproject mathematics has decided to use an invisible parameter called nested to track which banners are inside WPBS and which are not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think they have ever discussed it. At the same time, I don't think there was ever a discussion that said that no parameter named "nested" can be used, which is what you seem to be implying.

I have been thinking about modifying the maths rating template to do other things when it is nested, and so having some collection of pages that include the nested parameter will help with that. But since I'm busy, it may be a long term project (several months) to improve the banner. In the meantime there is absolutely no bad effect or problem with having the parameter there. When I get ready to work on the template code, it will be waiting for me. When I spend my time manually re-assessing articles, it's my prerogative whether to go ahead and add the nested parameter or any other parameter at the same time (see WP:BOLD). There is a tool on my user page to list math articles with incomplete assessments, and there are a couple hundred of them now. Once or twice a year I go through and fix them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

CBM it is not your prerogative to add a parameter that has no effect on the templates and has been deprecated based on community consensus and discussion. WP:BOLD does not apply here any more than it does (based on your arguments in the past) to the use of AWB to remove parameters from articles that do not render changes to the page. Your simply wasting your time by adding them and others time removing them. If you want to make changes to the template that's great, but if you need to use the nested parameter then you should start a discussion somewhere and discuss it first. There may well be a good reason why it is needed but we need to discuss it first and get consensus. Kumioko (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly not wasting anyone else's time, because nobody else is required to go around removing them or even required to notice them - they cause no problems for Mediawiki, don't break the page rendering, and the math project's tagging is irrelevant to anyone outside the math project. Anyone can add any sort of tracking parameters and comments when they manually assess an article. What matters is that I have a plan for using the parameter and I am editing with just my web browser in a wikiproject that I am a regular contributor to. If I want to waste my own time, that's my own business. However, I can change the parameter name to "math-nested" instead of "nested" if the mere use of the word "nested" causes irritation. I think this will be my last post in this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the info and advice with regards to the fonts. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought the way you explained things was clear and helpful in the current talkpage discussions, and I'd like to encourage you to write a statement or two at the rfc, if so inclined, now or later. (Though it can be good to start these things off with a few clear statements, that people can find consensus around, and then work their way out from.) —Quiddity (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not so sure whether I was being effective, so I had gone away from it for a little while. I will look at it again to see whether I can say anything helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Just fyi: It's a new subpage'd RFC, looking at wider aspects, in case you didn't click through to check :) —Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think you don't know the answer to my question (here below), please say "I don't know", and I will ask at the reference desk. Thanks. 77.126.199.194 (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but I don't think you will figure out these things unless you start by getting a clearer picture of what is going on with the syntax and semantics of second-order logic. Your question, as stated, doesn't really make sense - what if, for example, the addition operation of the model is not itself in L? — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• As for your first sentence: You don't have to repeat yourself about an issue - that has already been exhausted - by both of us expressing our different opinions about it. As for my ability to figure out "these things": to me, "these things" are one thing only, being my specific question, and I think I did figure out - fully - your clear answer to my first specific question (thanks to the clarity of your answer). My last question was also very specific, and I wonder why I won't be able to figure out any clear answer to that specific question, given that I fully figured out your clear answer to my first specific question (thank you for it again).
• As for my last question: you claim that it doesn't make sense, so let me explain it better: From what you have claimed - I understand, that the (Peano) second order arithmetic - interpreted in its full second order semantics - determines its model (up to iso.). Note that - the second order syntax with full semantics of second-order logic, involves (as you and I know so well) quantification - not only over individuals - but also over sets of individuals, while these sets are supposed to be sub-sets (sub-domains) of the domain of individuals, aren't they? So, if I go back to what you have claimed, I infer that the (Peano) second order arithmetic determines its model (up to iso.), provided that the first quantifier in the (second order) Axiom of Induction is interpreted as ranging over sets (sub-sets) of individuals. My last question tries to figure out whether that concept of set/sub-set, is dependent on the way we define the concept of "set/sub-set": Does it matter whether the concept of set/sub-set is defined by ZF, or by ZF + the axiom of constructibility? I hope I've made my point clearer now. If you think it's not clear yet, or you don't know the answer, then please say that, and I'll ask at the reference desk. However, if you think my question is clear now, and you have a clear answer (e.g. "yes" or "no", etc.), then please tell it to me, and I'll thank you again. Yours truly, Dave. 77.126.199.194 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hello Carl! Since I haven't received your reply so far, I guess you simply don't know the answer (I eliminate the other option, namely - that my question is not clear enough, because I'm sure it's definitely clear and well defined). So, let me tell you the simple answer - I reached after about two hours of thought. The answer is very simple: "No"; i.e. it doesn't matter whether the concept of set/sub-set is defined by ZF, or by ZF + the axiom of constructiblity.
• I got quite surprised when I realized that you couldn't reach the answer by yourself - as an expert in mathematical logic, because the proof is very simple! Here is a brief sketch of the proof: On one hand, the system containing the axiom of ZF along with the axiom of constructibility - contains the set of natural numbers - being a model for the (Peano) second order arithmetic (with its full second order semantics). On the other hand, the axiom of constructibilty is a "restrictive" axiom - i.e. it does not add more sets to the set universe of ZF (on the contrary it adds more restrictions to the concept of set), So: since the (Peano) second order arithmetic determines its model (up to iso.) - provided that the first quantifier in the (second order) Axiom of Induction is interpreted as ranging over sets of individuals - the concept of set being defined by ZF, then this must be the case also when the concept of set is defined by the system containing the axiom of ZF along with the "restrictive" axiom of constructibility. Very simple to figure out, isn't it?
• Now, that I have - both your clear answer to my first question (thanks to your important help) - and also a clear answer to my second question (thanks to the proof I discovered by myself), I can finally add the specific comment - I wanted to add - to my MA thesis (in Philosophy, not in Mathematics). Thank you again for your help. Yours truly, Dave. 77.126.199.194 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello CBM, thanks for your advice on my talkpage regarding the ongoing disruption from User:Alan Liefting. I don't think you and I have ever conversed, but it's nice to meet someone new! I've replied on my talkpage. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl, sorry to bother you, but there is some sort of problem with the peer review bot not getting the month of archived peer reviews correct. I have not been super active here of late (and Geometry guy is not around at all). I recently did the peer review monthly maintenance and found that Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2012 was putting PRs in the November 2012 category (I fixed that). The Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2012 page is also all October PRs and does not match Category:September 2012 peer reviews. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What process or template do you use to generate the monthly pages like Wikipedia:Peer review/October 2012? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I always use the procedure outlined at Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Maintenance. Since I was late, I used the bottom part. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why it picked the wrong month. I looked at the two pages that Geometry guy created that are used as templates when the new monthly archives are created, and they look OK. I even re-created the October page and it went correctly.

I suppose that for a while it makes sense to double-check the dates when the new pages are created, to make sure they are correct. After you save the new page, the month is hard-coded into the source code. The peer reviews themselves all seem to be ending up in the right categories - at least I haven't heard any complaints about that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much - I will check it at the start of each month for the next several months. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have knowledge in Model theory? If you do, then please tell me if you think that: every model - uniquely determined by an infinite class of second order axioms, can also be uniquely determined by a finite class of second order axioms? HOOTmag (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting iw order in Aristotle page. I found and fixed the problem. Please if you notice other interwiki order problems report at my talk page too so I can update the corresponding page and avoid redoing the same mistake. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

When I was investigating that, I found MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order, which according to Wikipedia:Interlanguage_links#Sorting is an indirect reference to meta:MediaWiki:Interwiki config-sorting order-native-languagename. I think the latter is maintained centrally; perhaps AWB could use that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I agree. I don't know why we use a different page. I'll try to change the code. Probably next week. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Would you support, or at least not oppose a proposal to move Entailment to Logical consequence? Recently, I have been adding external links to philosophy reference resources, and consistent with what I have always said, they use the term "logical consequence" rather than "entailment." (See SEP, InPho, PhilPapers, and IEP, none of which has an article on "entailment" independent of "logical consequence") The article itself is a bit scattered, and this is a big stumbling block for me to improving it. It is only one of the most important concepts in logic.Greg Bard (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the name. The current lede is awful, though. The key point is that first-order logic is just one of many ways of studying logical consequence; so an article on logical consequence in general cannot assume that it is being defined with first-order logic, nor that it works with formal languages at all, since the study if which English sentences are logical consequences of which others is also part of the study of logical consequence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. The whole article is a mess. I would like to do some work on it, but not under "entailment."Greg Bard (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, I think I may have asked you this before for a different project, but I do I get the bot started to assess quality at new WikiProject, WP:Freedom of speech? Template = {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.

Thank you very much for your efforts in this area, it's most appreciated! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I got it. I re-read over Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot, and I've set up everything correctly, so hopefully by the next time the bot does its run, all the statistics will be outputted. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks right. There is a lag of a couple hours on the toolserver right now, but I will try to run the bot on your project after that time to see if the table updates correctly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I really hope we get a lot of interest and participants from the greater Wikipedia community. After I've done a few other steps, I'll start notifying various talk pages. :) — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think everything is working fine. The table is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Freedom of speech articles by quality statistics and the log is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Freedom of speech articles by quality log. The bot updates them about once a day. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

--98.93.148.86 (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

In the section "History" there should be two links to existing Wikipedia articles: Ackermann and von Neumann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.45.152.6 (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - I have added the links. It's truly unfortunate that the article and its talk page are protected; it is an option of last resort. I am going to try unprotecting the talk page to see whether the issues with it have passed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sad to see they have not passed. I suspect from the quick reaction to your unprotect that someone has the page watchlisted somehow (possibly by a sleeper account, or just by paying attention to changes to the talk page). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Independence-friendly logic and equivalently the existential second-order logic turned out to have some interesting properties, including a compactness theorem, a Löwenheim–Skolem theorem, and a Craig interpolation theorem. Probably a few articles need updating. The SEP page has a summary and Väänänen's book (ISBN 0521700159) is pretty well written too. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, User:Pietro Galliani (one of Väänänen's grad students it seems) wrote a pretty nice article on dependence logic, but didn't do much integration besides adding some "see also" to other pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Recently I have expanded constructive proof and realizability some. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The bot, on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (core) articles by quality log, keeps switching Franz Kafka between FA and GA class. The article was promoted from GA to FA a few weeks ago but it seems the bot can't decide on which one the article currently is. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there is some corruption in the toolserver's copy of the enwiki database. As far as the toolserver could tell, the article was still in the GA categories, as well as being in the FA cats. So the bot looking at that data thought the article was in both categories, which causes the switching. Unfortunately there is no way to tell this form looking at the wiki, it requires doing a database query on the toolserver. I fixed the corruption by deleting and undeleting the talk page, which cleared out the old categories from the toolserver's database. Now the bot should realize the article is an FA. The toolserver admins do know about this corruption issue; they are working on getting a fresh database dump so they can reconstruct the toolserver database, which will fix the problem [7]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I was pointed to this safe harbour by Tijfo098. I did not perform a history merge on moving Entailment to Logical consequence. Whilst I am 90% certain of what to do I'm not big on those odds. Could you please let me know what to do? This isn't really my thing, but learning is always a good step. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a tough one because the pages existed separately for a long time, and so there are edits to both pages over the same period of time. That means that if you simply undelete the edit, you will end up with "interwoven" edits that were for two different pages, which makes the history very hard to follow.

According to the history of Entailment, Graham87 did a history split that moved some revisions to Entailment (pragmatics) in 2011. So I would assume all the other revisions that were at that location belong to the Entailment article itself. All these revisions are now at Logical consequence, where they range from 2003 to 2012. There are deleted revisions there that range from 2006 to 2012. So there is no way that you can merge these two histories.

I would recommend doing the following: move the revisions from Logical consequence back to Entailment; restore the deleted revisions at Logical consequence; do a cut-and-paste transfer of the contents of Entailment to Logical consequence, with a clearly-labeled edit summary; and then annotate both talk pages to indicate that there is significant history at both titles and that a cut and paste move was done on the current date.

The other option is to move all the deleted revisions to some other article such as Logical consequence/Oldversion and make that redirect to Logical consequence. But I think that is more confusing than having the revisions at the original two titles. I can explain how to do this if you want to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What I had recommended to Panyd was to move the rename-deleted history of Logical consequence to a subpage of Talk:Logical consequence. Subpages of articles are discouraged for the purpose of storing draft, old versions, etc. because the wiki search function finds them, but subpages of talk pages are fine; see WP:Subpages. Another solution would be to undelete the history to (say) Logical consequence (edits before merge of DATE) and then redirect that to logical consequence and note what has been done on the talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more clear to leave the revisions at Entailment and Logical consequence, since the articles were developed separately and then merged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that they were basically swapped. First logical consequence (1) was merged into entailment, and then entailment was moved to logical consequence (2). Now the history of logical consequence (1) is no longer accessible to non-admin users. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I see Panyd fixed it by cut&paste+redirect while undeleting history of entailment in the meantime. All is good now. :) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh my goodness thank you thank you thank you.Greg Bard (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanking you kindly. I hope I did an adequate job and hopefully I'll be able to do this again (my first time!) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the taking the time deal with this, Panyd. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Basically all axioms for non-well-founded set theories use a notion of graph. But how does one define graphs without defining sets first? I'm guessing the construction is to actually define ZF^– first (no regularity axiom or any alternatives), the use it to define graphs, then use graphs to give the non-well-founded axioms? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The notion of graph would be defined in the metatheory. It's not really worse than when we define the notion of "formula" in the metatheory and then write an axiom scheme that says that every formula of a certain kind is an axiom. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You might find this and this interesting. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For the info on User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/SFBA. i dont quite understand the details, but its obvious to me now that this is valuable, despite not being currently used.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello CBM, as I am an "involved" editor, I wonder if you could just check whether this edit fits within the framework of the topic ban currently in place for that particular editor? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I will look at the contribs again tomorrow before doing anything. The next block will be quite long (2 weeks), so there is a reason not to rush. But if it looks like even a small pattern is developing then another block would be warranted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it's just worth a warning, but as far as I could tell, it was, once again, an edit made directly in contravention of the terms of the topic ban which has been violated twice already. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the time for helpful warnings is likely past; two blocks and a subsequent ANI thread are enough, in my mind, to make sure the user is aware of the restriction. I just want to avoid rushing into anything. I will look into it again tomorrow and a few days later to see if that edit was a one-time thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sure it will be a one-time thing this time, particularly as he will have checked his recent edits and seen this discussion. On a related note, I was interested to see him "commenting out" external links for later, in exactly the same way he refused to "comment out" categories in non-mainspace articles which was what led to his topic ban. I'm not sure what point he's trying to make. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carl, Thanks for your edit at epsilon, delta, I overlooked the fact that the page now cites Hrbacek's single-author text. I am not sure what you mean by the comment "Robinson's methods are for standard points, maybe not all real points". If by "Robinson's methods" you mean microcontinuity, the standard points in *R are precisely all the real points in Robinson's framework. Also, it seems to me that Blaszczyk elaborates rather than merely asserting the usefulness of microcontinuity. Tkuvho (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I added a second Hrbacek paper today that also has some comments from him about things. On the "real"/"standard" terminology, I think that it is clear to more readers if we say "standard" for the elements of the Archimedian real line, and "nonstandard" for hyperreals that are not standard. Using the term "real" can be confusing because the "real line" could mean either the standard real line, or it could mean the hyperreal line (or some other non-Archimedean real line), depending on who uses the term. I don't think there is that possibility of confusion with the term "standard". — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You recently participated in a discussion at WP:AN that has now produced a new section at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of talk page redirects as CSD G6.

Thanks for your earlier comments, and I hope you might also participate in this new discussion. Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you have a moment, can you please explain the technical deletion at Talk:Gabriel_Allon? I'm an admin - but I don't see anything left deleted. I'm not disagreeing - just trying to understand for future. Thanks StarM 02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is some corruption in the toolserver's database copies, where the category membership records are occasionally wrong. The only way to clear it is to delete the page and then undelete it; just editing the page doesn't help. See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, and thanks for the link too StarM 05:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)