User talk:Knorlin

Any progress on Ternary Logic?
Kurt,

About a month ago you said you'd be undertaking a major revision on the Ternary logic article. If you've made any progress on it, please put whatever you've got on the Talk:Ternary_logic/Draft page so it can move forward collaboratively. If you're short on time, just tack whatever you've got into the end of the draft page and someone else will weave it all together.

Thanks, --Loqi T. 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 08:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Lewis's triviality result has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lewis's triviality result. Thanks! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear My submission on Lewis's Triviality Result is now "Very Old" and there's no evidence that anyone is looking at it any further. Any suggestions for what I could do to get it reviewed? I put a lot of work into the piece but am willing to (for example) cut the graphical portion if that would make it acceptable. It is the only part that could be accused of being at all original, although it's merely a reformulation. This topic deserves a Wiki article (a leading figure in this area said "I'm glad you're doing this"). Is the piece waiting for someone who is able to assess its correctness? I guess I thought the point of the review process was to screen out patently low-quality, agenda-driven, or frivolous submissions and from there let the open-source dynamic handle the accuracy problem. Knorlin (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi - pending indications to the contrary I wouldn't say there's any reasons to remove the graphical portion. I am fairly confident that the only reason this hasn't been reviewed is because very few reviewers have the technical skill to assess it against our guidelines - normally articles that seems of a reasonably high quality are dealt with fairly quickly. You are certainly correct that 95% of the things removed by the AfC process are to remove drafts that fail those aspects. AfC has about 15 things to consider in the process, and I suspect it's less that it's felt this article fails any of them, more that reviewers are more unwilling to sign off on that if they aren't confident in interpreting the article (it makes explaining their justification, if we get challenged, somewhat harder!)


 * I will have a look at it later tonight and see whether I am sufficiently confident to make a review - I'll let you know either way. If not, I'll also see if I can find a more qualified reviewer, otherwise I'll drop a few suggestions here. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear Thank you! I really appreciate your quick response and willingness to take another crack at this. Knorlin (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi - I've reviewed it and accepted it: Congrats! It still needs to be patrolled before it's completely in (very rare for an AfC-passed article to be declined), but you can now search and find it in Wiki. And a much hastier addition of an article than I (just over 6 years!) so well done and cheers. I've marked it as Start quality for now - the content is of at least B quality, but sourcing method needs improvements. If i get some free time this week I'll both add the hyperlinks to the refs (I checked they were there in approvals) and reformat to meet Wiki's bizarre style. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear Wow, that was fast. Yes, I knew that source documentation was a weak point but decided not to sink any more time into it until I knew the article was considered acceptable. You're certainly not obliged to help with that, but of course if you feel like it--this is Wikipedia, after all! I will take a look at the improvement tips and see what I can do to up the quality, when I have a little free time. Thanks again!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lewis's triviality result has been accepted
 Lewis's triviality result, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Nosebagbear (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Lewis%27s_triviality_result help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linda Lavin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madam Secretary ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Linda_Lavin check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Linda_Lavin?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)