User talk:CharlesGillingham/Archive 1

User:History of AI
I noticed this user page. It looks quite extensive; are you planning to make this public? --moxon 15:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes -- when I have time to finish it. I have five or ten paragraphs to write and when the rough draft is finished (and referenced) I'm going to announce it on the talk page of History of AI. Then if there are no intense objections, I'll put it up.CharlesGillingham 15:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks very promising. I suspect the current history page could be moved to "Timeline" or something without any objections. If you don't mind me asking, have you ever pursued research in AI and composition? --moxon 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my plan: to move the table in the current article to a new "Timeline of artificial intelligence" article.


 * I worked for Aion Corporation (an expert systems shell) back in 1989-92. I was a software developer and manager. Before that, I studied philosophy, cognitive science and computer science at U.C. Berkeley. AI was my career and "day job" before the band took off.CharlesGillingham 20:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with Musical Notation, Charles. Somehow my browser must have been causing problems... Matthias Röder 09:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions Referring to your edits
Quick question what is the tempo  of the wikipedia song in picture file on the musical notation page--Antiedman 15:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a cadence, so it should ritard a bit. I suppose it's around 130 bpm at the start, and the last three eighth notes are probably around 100. CharlesGillingham 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any progress ...
... on those Music Notability guidelines? I see you're fighting the good fight; I've been trying to for a while now, but it's tough. The topic seems to have been dropped, which I think is how they mostly deal with us inclusionists. TribeCalledQuest 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we are waiting for a consensus, which (as I understand it) would mean that we're waiting for one of them to back down. Fat chance, I suppose, but they may back down if more editors were to post their support of the new guildelines. Is it ethical to ask editors individually to weigh in? That seems a little conspiratorial to me.


 * As for myself, I think I have made my position pretty clear with a concrete proposal. I'm not sure there's much more I can do except bicker with them, and that certainly won't create consensus.


 * If the proposal gets buried too deeply on the talk page, I may repost it under a new topic to keep it alive. CharlesGillingham 19:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying about asking other editors to weigh in. That points to what I feel is the problem with the process as a whole: I don't know how you move a discussion from the bickering stage to a formal voting process, or whatever the Wiki-way is. The arguments all seem to devolve into editors shouting back and forth, with no real progress.


 * Oh well. TribeCalledQuest 14:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Algorithms
Regarding removing the category "artificial intelligence" from Genetic Algorithms: I note that the category "intelligence" remains. Isn't "artificial intelligence" a more fitting category than just "intelligence"? I generally refer to GA as "nonlinear (or combinatorial) optimization and AI"; I think much of the research aims towards AI, but much of the current application is more optimization, particularly in control engineering. Both terms apply. Pete St.John 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The most fitting category for genetic algorithm is "category:genetic algorithms", which is a sub-category of "category:artificial intelligence" (by way of "category:evolutionary algorithms")


 * I agree that the article doesn't belong under "category:intelligence" at all, because "category:artificial intelligence" is a sub-category of "category:intelligence", and it's another case of WP:SUBCAT.


 * I didn't fix this (or notice it) because I was only fixing "category:artificial intelligence" CharlesGillingham 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Images
Image:P11 kasparov breakout.jpg was marked for deletion because it needed a fair use rationale for its use on Wikipedia; I added the notice to all of the captions where it was being used so editors knew that it may have been deleted. A log including all of your uploads can be found here. 17Drew 06:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem
No problem. Its all because of a script I made, NewPagePatroller. An updating list of new pages! the power is mine! --TheJosh 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on Philosophy of artificial intelligence
I like what I see. Keep at it, I wish I could contribute more, but just don't know much about it. Here's a funny AI story: when I was a grad student in the mid-70's I had a chum who spent his evenings toiling away in the Stanford AI Laboratory. One evening, after supper with him and his wife, he brought there to meet "Perry (Parry?) the Paranoid" (I suspect Terrry Winograd doing this work, can't remember...). Anyway, I would try to have a dialog with Perry (at a teletype, or a CRT, again can't remember). Every time, after about 10 sentences of something like the following (from long memory) Me: "Hello." Perry: "Hello". "How are you tonight?" Perry: "Why do you ask?" Me: "I'm just being polite." Perry: "I don't like it when people are "just polite" ... after a few more exchanges like this Perry would get anxious and "hang up" on me.

Somewhere, in print, (New York Review of Books I bet) I've seen a dialog between Perry and an AI "shrink". That's even more hilarious. Shrink: "Why are you asking "Why do you ask?". Even a tad of said dialog would be fun in the article. BillWvbailey 16:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Still very much a work in progress. Hope to have it in good shape by the end of the week.


 * I like the story about PARRY. Have you heard about the time that a sales vice president from BBN came by to talk to Daniel Bobrow and had very frustrating conversation with ELIZA about using the computer? True story.


 * I might add some of these to the articles about ELIZA or chatterbots, some day. CharlesGillingham 16:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

References on artificial intelligence
Charles, thanks for leaving a message regarding my edits on the articles about artificial intelligence and philosophy of artificial intelligence. I do prefer the templates as they do provide COinS support, thus they enable to reuse the references by applications like Zotero. Anyway, it looks like there is (or was?) some discussion on COinS support on the discussion page for the citation template as well, but it's actually not working with my Zotero installation. I will keep an eye on that... please accept my appologizes if my modificatations do not conform to the overall article layout.

Thanks --Ioverka 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Hi there. I would like to know more people interested in those subjects. Please take a look at Raffe opinions Raffethefirst (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded to your 1-month old question about Combinatorial game theory
Sorry, I've been away for a while. I responded to your question at the bottom of Talk:Combinatorial game theory. My answer was rather equivocal, unfortunately, but basically I suggested including a brief section on AI techniques in the article, but not too much. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 05:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I was away even longer, and didn't see your question until a few days ago. I'd say David Eppstein's take on the problem is better than anything I could come up with. The fusion of AI and CGT&mdash;if it can be accomplished&mdash;is awaiting someone's OR.–Dan Hoeytalk 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your AI edits of febuary 22
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193047392 - Wow huge edit, I had two remarks. I think most of what was there about Samuel Butler is probably better in the History of AI section. But I think that one of the significant things he might have been saying was that Darwinism is a natural process for all intelligent species. And that the scope of Darwinism can also apply to mechanical consciousness, which is why I think the the line "Butler envisioned mechanical consciousness emerging by means of Darwinian Evolution, specifically by Natural selection, as a form of natural, not artificial, intelligence." Should go back in.
 * Fine.

Other than that, I think Isacc Asimov's I, Robot should be mentioned, in the AI in myth and fiction section. As I feel it's currently one of the main fictional models that average joe citizen can identify and be familiar with, due in most part, to the books popularity and the I, Robot (film) with Will Smith.
 * By all means, put I, Robot in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193187991 - I'm taking out the word can, as nobody can predict the future. And really the word estimate is a verb and works just fine.
 * Much better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193205908 - Some link to Commonsense knowledge needs to remain or be re-added due the the level, amount, and scope of data collected from MIT's Open Mind Common Sense project. See Open Mind CommonSense. Why did you remove my addition of of Language with respects to Evolutionary robotics? I think I may have put it under the wrong section, but the research is significant. It's a new approach that many researchers have talked about with regards to language and thought development. It's been suggested that computers will not even be able to achieve AI without developing their own language, and only a few researchers are working on the problem.
 * I think this material should go in the evolutionary robotics article or the natural language processing article. This section should describe only approaches that affected a large number of researchers.


 * I hated taking this out, because it was well written, well referenced, and interesting. It was just a little off-topic. (Similar to the Samuel Butler material.) I think your contributions are always well written, well referenced and interesting.


 * But, and this is a very important point, the article has to mention only the most significant, influential ideas in the field of AI. Just the most important ideas. That's all there's room for. If we mention a name or idea, it should ideally be something that's in almost every textbook on the subject, almost every popular survey of the field. (You'll notice that my footnotes generally reference the four most popular textbooks, the two most popular histories of AI (McCorduck, Crevier) and the most popular futurist (Kurzweil)). Before rewriting this article, I first researched exactly which subjects an article on AI had to cover (see Talk:Artificial intelligence/Textbook survey). I've tried to make sure that all the major topics covered in AI textbooks, histories and surveys are mentioned. This is a survey article, and there's very little latitude as far as what should and shouldn't be included. The article has to accurately define the entire field of AI.


 * Of course, I've broken this rule in a few places, but most of that is systematic. (For example, I've emphasized the unsolved problems, which are not covered very well in textbooks, or in histories of AI. Even so, I stuck to well known unsolved problems.). Sometimes there are gaps that I've had to fill in. And every editor is naturally a little biased towards their own interests. But, in writing this article, I have really struggled to avoid writing about what I thought was interesting, and stick to the topics that define the subject. (Which is one reason why a few of these sections bore me, despite the fact that I wrote them.)

I was also thinking that there's probably enough information on AI research that it probably deserves it's own page. Plus the article is really long, perhaps even too long to be considered for FA status which at this point I think the article deserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=next&oldid=193220693 - here I notice that you mention that the technical details are pretty boring. I was thinking since AI is such a board topic, it might be good to set a target audience age. That way there could be a way to set a standard for technical details, and how they could be sorted and assessed for placement on the page. For instance if the subject is too complex in detail, the article would give a basic lay audience intro. and then direct user to see a sub-page for more details. (On a side note, Colorblind is my fav. Counting Crows song)--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The target audience is the general, educated reader: not someone who is already familiar with computer science. It should also be useful to computer scientists coming from other fields. The technical subjects have to be mentioned (i.e., each of the tools has to be mentioned) to properly define the field. I'm in the process of removing the names of specific sub-sub-problems or algorithms for which can't be properly explained in the room available CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I have to say, for an educated reader, familiar with the way wikipedia works, the article is fine. But for a general reader, who is looking for a brief summary, even the most complete sections can leave a reader with more questions than answers. For instance, many of the summarizing descriptions completely rely on the readers patience and availability to search the connecting wikilinks.


 * Examples where I think the average reader might have to follow wikilinks to understand what was being said:


 * 1) "In the middle of the 20th century, a handful of scientists began a new approach to building intelligent machines, based on recent discoveries in neurology" (History of AI research). The word neurology, is probably understood by someone with a GED, but not a 12 year old. suggested fix neurology|brain, so it reads "''recent discoveries about the brain".
 * 2) "By the middle 60s their research was heavily funded by DARPA." (History of AI research) not a huge issue. But it could read DARPA|U.S. Department of Research "By the middle 60s their research was heavily funded by the U.S. Department of Defense."
 * 3) "... no silver bullet..." (Traditional symbolic AI#"Scruffy" symbolic AI) relies on user knowing what the slang "sivler bullet" means. Suggested fix silver bullet|easy answer.
 * 4) ""Naive" search algorithms"(Tools of AI#Search) What is a Naive search algorithms? Suggested fix rewrite sentence
 * 5) "Heuristic or "informed" search. The naive algorithms quickly..." (Tools of AI#Search) What percentage of the population knows what Heuristic means? Answer: 4% Suggested fix rewrite sentence (which leads met too say.....)


 * Rather than continue, I've decided to just make the changes and then you and User:Pgr94 can revert what you don't like. But again, this seems to be a common problem throughout the entire article.


 * I'm moving this discussion to the Talk:Artificial Intelligence page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Among the Machines
haha, yikes dude, you committed me to read a book or two, but I take at look at some stuff I can google, right quick. I'll look at it tomorrow. Samuel Butler was eccentric enough. that there's probably a few things I can find.

Today my girlfriend diverted my attention by telling me something about the Kellogg Company. Apparently Mr. Kellogg first developed Corn flakes and Graham crackers as a remedy to abstain from chronic masturbation..... How crazy is that?!--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the new page and have added to it a quote from a review of George B. Dyson's Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution of Global Intelligence (1998) ISBN 0-7382-0030-1; a link to Samuel Butler's letter in The Press Darwin Among the Machines — (To the Editor of the Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13 June, 1863.) I added See Also, some Categories, and links to other articles, too. It still needs expert attention, but I think it's looking better, if not yet good. Pawyilee (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * O! Boy, did I ever find a much better review! It's an interesting-people message and concludes: Dyson weaves together all of this and more, skillfully but sketchily. Exclusive of the front matter, notes, and index, the book is only 228 pages. There are many parts I can't summarize without trivializing them. I don't know if the book has an identifiable thesis, but a central idea is this:

"In the game of life and evolution there are three players        at the table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am         firmly on the side of nature. But nature, I suspect, is on         the side of the machines."

This is a deep book. There is not much point to reading it unless you want to think about the issues it raises. Most of us are usually too busy to do that. If you have a little free time this summer, reading and thinking about this book might be a good way to spend it.

Now to figure out how to work it into the article! Pawyilee (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Charles
Yes, I like the new page, Darwin Among the Machines, and, yes, it is obvious why you started it. I hope you've checked out the additions I've made to it, especially with regard to Dyson and his book of the same name. I contacted reviewer Tal Cohen (tal.ayal.cohen@gmail.com), who replied: I've made a minor copy-editing change to the Wikipedia page, but nothing more; I am afraid that, at the moment, I suffer from a severe lack of time and cannot seriously contribute to Wikipedia (I have contributed scores of hours to the project in the not-so-distant past). However, it is an honor for me that you have chosen to quote from my review.

Thank you,

- Tal Pawyilee (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What English speaker hasn't heard of a silver bullet?
Any english speaker whose native language is not english and any english speaker who hasn't been exposed to werewolf mythology or engineering metaphors.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Brain" is inaccurate
''"Brain" is inaccurate. The discoveries that are being alluded to are about how individual neurons work, not brains. Cut it? Revert it? Which do you think?''

I'm reverting it, it would be unhealthy to introduce that level of inaccuracy in attempting to make the article easier to read. I agree with you.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

do you want to be in my list?
Hy I am making a list of interested ai people so if somebody want to go deeper into the subject to know with whom to talk. Do you agree to be in this list? And also please tell me how the page content can be generated at the top of the page. Thanks. Raffethefirst (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your post at WT:MoS
Your comments are welcome, Charles. The only thing that frustrates me is when people are roughly in agreement and can still manage to generate pages and pages of argumentation (which happens, oh, always :). It's a little safer to talk about specific examples, and then let people deduce the general principle as they discuss the examples (which is probably what you would suggest anyway, based on your self-reverted post!) (Standard disclaimer: feel free to respond here, or not to respond.) - Dan (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

AI effect
I have restored it to User:CharlesGillingham/AI effect in your user space. If you want to develop it and move it back to mainspace, it was only deleted as a prod, so it's automatically OK. (In my personal opinion, it really needs some more work if it's going to be a worthwhile article.) If you think it's not worth developing, it can be deleted. In either case let me know, and I will do the necessary deletions. DGG (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

computational theory of mind
Thanks for your help. The page needs a lot of work. Leadwind (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Cease and desist
Okay Mr. Charles Gillingham. I know who you are now. You are that guy that constantly wants to keep mentioning George Lakoff (a linguist!) into my articles. You claim to want to bring my articles "up to wikipedia's standards" when, in fact, they very edits you make bring wild complaints from wikipedia. You want to simply list meaningless citations of books and writers that have nothing at all to do with the actual content of the articles. You claim to have authored the article on the history of AI when, in fact, YOUR edits did not appear until July of 2007, at which point the article was essentially finished in its current form. You are taking credit for work which you did not write. You are constantly and repeatedly violating wikipedia's citation system. You are plagiarizing parts of articles into your own articles and then turning around and demanding a "merger". If you do not stop messing with my articles and engaging in this graffiti-like editing, I will report your behavior to administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paroswiki (talk • contribs) 00:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually, when I respond to somebody I disagree with, I like to review the places where we agree, before exploring the area where we disagree. I'm a little stymied as to where to respond to your criticism, because pretty much everything you just said is not true. Point by point:
 * I didn't add George Lakoff to "your" article -- I removed him. I removed him because you felt he didn't belong in an article about robotics. I agree.
 * In my comment at Talk:Embodied cognitive science, I wasn't talking about bringing "your" article (embodied cognitive science) "up to wikipedia's standards", I was talking about the newly-merged article embodied cognition (which is bit of a grab bag at the moment).
 * The article isn't "yours" -- all wikipedia articles are edited by a consensus of editors. That includes both of us, and anyone else who is interested. That's how it works.
 * I am not aware of any "wild" complaints about my edits.
 * I didn't add any "meaningless citations" to embodied cognitive science. On the contrary, I removed every citation that wasn't directly referred to in the text. (If I got one or two of these wrong, please fix them. It's difficult to 100% sure without inline citations.)
 * I did, in fact, write the article history of artificial intelligence, as you can see in this edit, where I completely replaced the page, and many hundreds of subsequent edits and additions. Other editors have contributed comments, sentences and copyediting, of course, but the organization and most of the text is mine. The high standard of WP:Verification is also mine.
 * For most of my articles, I use Shortened notes, which is a standard method of verification.
 * As far as "plagiarism" goes, I assume you're talking about the merger of text from embodiment, embodied cognitive science and embodied psychology into (what will eventually be) embodied cognition. This is just a merger. I'm not trying to rewrite this stuff. (I have, in the past, plagiarized myself a number of times, for example using text from History of AI in AI winter, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.)
 * I haven't "demanded" a merger. I think it's a good idea and a better introduction to embodied approaches to AI, but I explicitly said "I won't carry out this plan until I hear you reply," and I've stuck to that, even though it has been many months since I first proposed changes to the embodiment family of articles.
 * The only changes I have made to this article are ones that I felt you, User:paroswiki, were already in favor of. I don't think my work here could be characterized as "graffitti".
 * I believe that you sincerely feel that embodied cognitive science should not be changed, and I have respected your opinion. I think that all Wikipedia editors get a little cranky when people make or propose major changes to articles they have written, and I understand that. I get cranky too, at first, but I try to move on to the next step: listening. I encourage you, in the future, to exercise more good faith and avoid getting personal. I'm not trying to work against you here. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better.  CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of artificial intelligence
I just fixed a proposed merge of Ethics of artificial intelligence back into Philosophy of artificial intelligence. It appears to me that you split the Ethics of artificial intelligence article out originally, so you might want to comment on the proposed re-merge. ComputerGeezer (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist2 on History of artificial intelligence
Reflist|2 doesn't work with my browser (Safari).
 * I've got 3.1.2 (525.21) up on my screen and reflist2 displays fine. What kind of error are you getting?  May I suggest that you either upgrade your browser or check for errors on your OS? Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm using 3.1.2 (4525.22) on a MacBook. The footnotes appear in two columns, however the links for the right hand column do not work properly. Clicking on a high-numbered footnote, like, say [149] scrolls to the bottom of the article, well beyond where the footnote is. Also, when there are multiple backlinks, e.g. a b, these do not appear in their correct position. The clickable links are invisible and the a b appears somewhere down towards the bottom of the article.


 * The bug doesn't seem to appear on all systems. I would be interested to know if your system also displays the bug. Did you try clicking on the high-numbered footnotes?


 * This bug has been reported by several users. See, Template_talk:Reflist/Archive_2008 and Template talk:Reflist  CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I created Talk:History of artificial intelligence/Temp‎ for testing purposes. On Vista, I have Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16, IE7, and Safari open.  I don't see footnote 149 on any of them, so I'm guessing you are using that as example?  The highest footnote is 134, and looking at  Talk:History of artificial intelligence/Temp‎  in all three browsers, the examples you give work fine except for IE7, which appears to ignore reflist2. So, Mozilla and Safari works fine for me using the temp page link above.  I'm aware of the bug, but I could not duplicate the "links after column break" error in Safari in Vista. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that's interesting. If you look at Template talk:Reflist, you'll see that DuncanHill has the bug and Gadget850 doesn't. They both seem to be on Windows XP. It's not clear what is different about all our systems that's causing this variety of behavior.


 * To be specific about a few things, in Talk:History of artificial intelligence/Temp, footnote #90 looks like this:

^     Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25
 * and the a b c that should appear in the blank space actually appears down in the References section, superimposed over "* Minsky, Marvin (1969) ...". I can click on them down there and they take me back and forth to the [90] in the text. CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the followup. After reading the relevant discussion, it sounds like multiple columns should be made a user preference, like so many other features.  Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Embodied Philosophy
Thanks for your comments and edit. I read Science regularly and found this article very interesting and worthy of wider recognition. The changes you made seem appropriate. I wonder if mentioning Tom M Mitchell by name is helpful if no other information is available beyond checking the quoted reference. Perhaps we should reference his home page http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tom/ ? Lrunge (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AI_effect
Hello

I am writing about the webpage called "AI_effect". The article was an uncontested prod, and therefore deleted. But in order to make the article availabe to the public to speed up its progress, because I assume it would be (at the minimum) a good starting point for further development, and because I thought that it is already very informative in its current state, I would like to restore it.

The initiator of the prod recommended asking you, as a main contributor of the AI projects of wikipedia and current developer of the article, about whether further improvements or restoration should take place, which is what I would like to do here. So if it is o.k. for you, I will ask to recreate the article and also try to list the most important issues on its talk page - with the goal to enable public development again.

Thank you for taking the time to work on the article, and all the other contributions you have already made in the field of AI at wikipedia

best regards - Columnist (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the article, such as it is, is at User:CharlesGillingham/AI effect. I've organized it into the three or four topics that I think are important and I've gathered a few sources. The article is still basically unwritten. Feel free to work on it, if you like. CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, i have just flipped through the article and it seems that you have made quite a big project out of the page (I will take a closer look at the text and the references as soon as my free time allows me to do so). If I can be of help, please just contact me. Columnist (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moves from CITE to other pages
Hi. You moved the "Making an article use the footnotes system" section from WP:CITE to WP:FOOT. Could you put "or (the last two are used to split long listings into columns). Three-column lists are inaccessible to users with smaller/laptop monitors and should be avoided." back in please? Thank you Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching this. I've combined all the material on reflist and to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.     Ja Ga  talk  01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources
Thanks, by the way, for helping raise the importance of the accessibility of that guideline, and for your persistance in averting misrepresentations of things (wihtout which I think I'dve been toast). It's a shame the topic seems irretrievably (to some extent) clouded in the ambiguity of terms and methods, especially where there's divergence between common usage and Wiki technical usage. Still, tried! EverSince (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I didn't think it was fair to blame "recent edits" (i.e., you) for problems that had actually been there for years. CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

History of artificial intelligence
I have finished the GA review of the article. The review is on hold for seven days so improvements can be made before it is promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A few Ideas
Hi, I'm busy with other articles and you're in the middle of a GA review. Remind me to get back to you when the review's done. -- Philcha (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

History of AI
Hi! I noticed that History of AI was up for GA - and I hadn't even realized it existed. :) It's a really good article. You probably don't need any, but if you need any assistance with it just let me know, as I'd be really happy to help out if I can. (especially for a fellow accordionist, if the information was correct). - Bilby (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I appreciate the offer. I fixed most of things that came up today, so I think it's okay for now. CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiya Charles. It looks like there are still things to do on History of AI at the GA review; let me know if you want help. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks guys. Take a look. I've fixed most of it. There's just a few things left. If you have time take a look at it. CharlesGillingham (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P11 Kasparov Breakout IFD
I notice you !voted to keep on this IFD because you said the image had been released under a free license. Unfortunately, it has not — IBM's permission extends only to use on Wikipedia (and this has been verified by an OTRS user) — so the image must meet the non-free content criteria. As a result, the image is likely to be deleted unless a valid fair use claim is made out. You may wish to return to this discussion to clarify your !vote. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate the heads up. Unfortunately, I think I'm done getting involved in these kind of discussions. My focus is on content. Research is what I enjoy, and research, in my view, is what Wikipedia needs most.


 * I don't understand why the use of images on Wikipedia is so poorly organized. I also don't understand why human beings, given utter and complete freedom to organize a project any way they like, would choose to create a heartless and byzantine bureaucracy, complete with robotic martinets, incomprehensible forms, dense unreadable lists of rules, rules on how to enforce the rules, secret committees demanding specific paperwork and, most galling of all, the condescension of those few who believe in the system.


 * Forgive my vent. Thanks again for trying to help. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll field this one ... nothing to forgive, Charles (or is it Charlie?), we all feel the same way to some extent. There are three short answers; neither of us has time for the longer answers :)  First, maybe someone just bobbled the photo permission process and IBM didn't give us what we need; I'll ask one of the guys who can handle things like this.  Second, since we're the top internet site in the world by content (Google is ranked higher, but when people use Google, they're not looking for Google's content), and since we let anyone who wants wander in and give us their stuff, unsurprisingly, we get a flood of useless crap, which would bury us if we didn't have at least a few hoops for people to jump through ... fortunately, most of the hoops are actually useful hoops.  Third, IfD is much like any other process.  The people who initially got it going and still care about it understand that we can't use 99% of what we get sent, for various reasons, and they feel real regret about having to tell people they can't use their favorite pictures, and they have some understanding of the various copyright and other laws around the world that are supposed to be reflected in our policies.  So, the guys who really know what's going on will, in general, have to say "no" a lot, but they try to do it in informative and nuanced ways.  Other folks come along and say the same kinds of things that the first guys said, but sometimes with less knowledge and sometimes with less regret, in a more mechanistic and occasionally patronizing way.  That's life. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Since someone from IBM submitted the photo to Wikipedia, I assume they actually wanted Wikipedia to use it. If so, can you ask them to send a statement to photosubmission[[Image:At sign.svg|15px|@]]wikimedia.org referencing "Image:P11 Kasparov Breakout.jpg"?  In the email, they should say that IBM currently holds the copyright, they are entitled to speak for IBM, and they are releasing the license under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.  They should indicate that they understand that this allows the photo to be freely copied and modified by anyone (including third parties not affiliated with Wikipedia), for any purpose. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to WikiProject Classical music/Categories
Hi. I've just noticed this diff here on WikiProject Classical music/Categories. What happened to Category:Musical eras? Thanks. -- Klein zach  07:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I felt we needed a top-level category for the History of classical music. Once created, it turned out be essentially identical to the category musical eras, so I replaced it. I felt the title "musical eras" was misleading in any case, since there are musical eras in other genres as well. I think this is the right direction, although I could be talked into reviving it. Have I been too WP:BOLD? CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I'm happy to listen to your opinion on this. The problem with Category:History of European art music is that the articles in this cat are not history articles (e.g. 'History of Renaissance Music', 'History of Baroque Music' etc.) They are articles grouped according to period so Category:History of European art music is a misnomer.


 * Likewise the reason for not calling this Classical music eras is that it can't really be applied to the early eras, also European music eras doesn't apply to the 19th/20th century when mainstream music was being composed outside Europe. I don't think Western music eras works either. I think the easiest option would be to go back to Music eras. It's always been used in context after all and has not created any problems.  -- Klein  zach  08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the name is not that important. It's a subcategory of History of music and, with its tidy chronological list of eras, it looks to me like a summary of the history of what normal people call "classical music" (rather than jazz or Indian classical music). I'm happy to go with whatever name you think is best. CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll restore Music eras then. It's actually a subcategory of these three: Category:Music history, Category:Historical eras, Category:Classical music. History of music is an article - am I missing something here? -- Klein zach  11:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Category:Music history CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the category. -- Klein zach  13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Pacing technology (innovation)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pacing technology (innovation), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Pacing Technology. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pacing Technology
Sorry, my NPWatcher has gone mad. I have no idea why it posted a copyvio template.

Are you aware of your article seems like a recreation? I noted it was listed on the disambig page.  Digital Ninja WTF 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. The bot was fine. Here's what happened: I came across an article that explained that a term was used two ways. I copied (98%) of the article to a new article and changed the original into a disambig page. So I can see why the bot was confused. It's all fixed now. CharlesGillingham (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in. Next time, please use the Move tab. Moving articles using copy&paste method causes copyright issue (GFDL violation). That's why the page was tagged by the copyright bot. :) I have done history-merging for the two pages, so they should be fine now. Best wishes, --PeaceNT (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:REFPUNCT
I stumbled across a shortcut, WP:REFPUNCT, which nobody noticed to update along with WP:REFPUN and WP:REFPUNC when the target section moved. I think this is all three of the obvious shortcuts now; I don't see another at Special:Prefixindex/WP:REFP. To call attention to the presence of three shortcuts which all require updating in the event of another move of the target section, I listed them all in the Template:Shortcut at the end of the preceeding section. Note that this would be less of a problem if one uses name-anchor shortcuts with section anchors (see for example the many section shortcuts such as WP:EIW in the Editor's index). Name-anchor shortcuts are slightly harder to type, but if their containing page moves, one only has to update the one shortcut for the whole page. Not that I'm suggesting any changes to any existing pages, just pointing out a way to make shortcuts more portable at the expense of more typing, but you probably already knew about that so never mind. --Teratornis (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-NHC
Template:PD-NHC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)