User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt/archive

User page (not an article)
Hello, I'm Spirit Ethanol. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a template to your userpage, indicating that it is not an article. See also WP:AUTOBIO for our rules on autobiographical material. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added a header to further clarify that the userpage is not a Wikipedia article. Carl (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request
Hi Carl, There is an arbitration clarification request you have logged above that appears incomplete. Could i ask you to either complete the request per the guidance provided, request the amendment request is removed or if you are part way through you may request assistance with completing the request if you are unsure on specifics of formatting or required content.

If you need assistance please feel free to leave me a note here or on my talk page and we can discuss further. Amortias (T)(C) 12:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Amortias! I left a note on your home page. Carl (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Should user pages be indexed?
Should user pages be indexed?

I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Are links allowed on user pages?
Are links allowed on user pages? In the particular case of the review of the book "Inconsistency Robustness" by Professor JJ Meyer, it might be difficult for other editors to find the review without a link.

I don't have a strong opinion except that they should probably be treated uniformly. Carl (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Should other editors edit a user page?
Should other editors just go ahead and edit a user page?

Would it be better to have a discussion first? Carl (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

ARCA comments
I've removed your comments regarding IP addresses as off topic. The Committee has no jurisdiction regarding the technical aspects of Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk ) 03:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem. Editors are welcome to post them to a more appropriate location.Carl (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Promotion
If you restore external links to your user page or remove NOINDEX again, you will be blocked from editing. You will not be using Wikipedia as a platform to promote your work. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If I understand things correctly, it looks like the NOINDEX that was inserted has no effect because another editor has pointed out that user space is not indexed. It turns out that with a little work, it is not necessary to have external links because other Wikipedia editors can find published references using a search engine.Carl (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that the link to Professor JJ Meyer's review of the book "Inconsistency Robustness" is self promotion? Of course, Wikipedia editors can find the book "Inconsistency Robustness" just by going to Amazon.  But it is much harder for them to find JJ's review on the publisher's website.Carl (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the Wikipedia policy on external links in user pages? Is the policy uniform across all user pages?Carl (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What is the Wikipedia policy on indexing user pages? Is the policy uniform across all user pages?Carl (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The guidelines for user pages are at User pages. The condensed version is that your user page may contain brief autobiographical information, but should be used mostly for interpersonal discussion and coordination of your work on Wikipedia. You will note the bold text: "Pages used for blatant promotion ... are usually considered outside this criterion". Promotion of your non-Wikipedia work (including links to it and to reviews of it) is inappropriate, especially considering the fact that self-promotion is one of the principle concerns other editors have about your presence here. Visibility of reviews of your work is not at all a concern of Wikipedia. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did not know about User pages. My intent is to be helpful to other Wikipedia editors by providing information so that they know who I am and where I am coming from.  Suggestions for improvement are appreciated.Carl (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am still wondering about the appropriateness of placing a no indexing notice on a user page. Has the notice been placed on other user pages?  Should all user pages not be indexed by Wikipeda? Carl (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A few points

 * 1) To reiterate the comments above, please stop making off-topic posts at ARCA. It is not a forum for general discussion.
 * I am not trying to make off topic comments. Admittedly, I am still learning the customs around here. Carl (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Commentary about paradigm shifts, for example, is entirely off-topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The concept of paradigm shift is important to understanding the current state of play of controversies in Computer Science concerning inconsistency robustness.Carl (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are actually concerned about editing while logged out, there are technical ways to help avoid this problem; for example, you could add   to User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/common.css, which would make the "save page" button green while you are logged in to this account. CBM is quite right here that it is much more secure to edit using an account.
 * Thanks for the tip!
 * I agree with CBM that it is much more secure to edit while logged in, which is what I tried to do. Unfortunately, I got caught out a couple times causing big security problems. Carl (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) If you accidentally edit logged out, you can contact the oversight team for help.
 * Unfortunately, I don't quite understand how to do this. Clicking on the link sent me to a page that said that it was owned by the arbitration committee. Carl (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that the IP address is public long enough that attackers can find it even if it is later deleted. Carl (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, I thought that page would have more of an explanation. WP:OVERSIGHT explains the process, User:Oversight is a way to contact them by using the "Email this user" feature. They are usually very quick, and there is very little likelihood of "attackers" lurking around in the interim. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! However, these days attackers don't lurk; instead they have systems that exfiltrate IP addresses in as near real time as they can without drawing attention to themselves.Carl (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's not rocket science. Or you email, or ping, an administrator. As for real-time sweepers, with an article on you and a user page that's also an article on you, there is no privacy. Besides, you're a computer scientist, and I am an English professor--if I can figure this out, then surely you should be able to. OR, what do you make of this user page/biography? Drmies (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are there any websites other than Wikipedia that publish their users IP addresses?Carl (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does have (legitimate) mirrors, but not quite that fast. Really, there is nobody scraping all of Wikipedia in real time hoping to harvest random users' IPs. (The NSA doesn't need to bother ;)
 * As for the user page, well, userspace is noindexed these days, so there's little harm. There's a template, userpage otheruse, for the "not an article" issue; see this edit (feel free to tweak or revert - but this is a common way to solve this problem, and includes a note about mirrors if that is a concern). Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) None of this is relevant if you don't start engaging with the concerns being expressed at ARCA. If we decline your request, this account will be blocked. You need to decide whether you are willing and able to follow the restrictions that have been proposed, and tell us as much, with no further commentary on side issues.
 * Over at the user pump in (updated) response to CBM, I said:
 * "Thanks for the suggestion Carl. I have created a new account in which I will for now only edit the user page and talk page for this account in addition to administration pages that I get dragged into. If administration gives its approval, then I will only edit talk pages of articles. It would be a great improvement if we could get editors involved in improving the articles that have been blocked from editing in addition to the editors previously involved. Further suggestions are greatly appreciated." Carl (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you've consistently avoided giving a direct response to the question of whether you would follow the restrictions suggested at ARCA. Do you understand the restrictions being proposed? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added more things over at ARCA. Further suggestions are appreciated.Carl (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We're discussing this and will get back to you. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft of proposed restrictions
The following is a draft of the proposed editing restrictions pertaining to you. This is a draft only; it is still subject to change. I'm posting it here for review because ARCA is a busy page and can be a bit difficult to follow. Would you agree to follow these restrictions, if we were to pass them or something very similar? (Note that this for the sake of providing information; please mention any specific concerns if you have them, but this is not an opportunity for negotiation.)

Thanks. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above looks good. Hopefully there will not be any more accidental logged out edits now that I have the little green button to remind me :-) How do I report any accidental logged out edits to the oversight team?  (I will correct the page to substitute my signature when I notice the mistake.)  It will not be necessary for the oversight team to correct the edit history because the IP address will already have been exfiltrated.Carl (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You may email the oversight team at oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carl (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Carl, thanks for agreeing to this. I've just posted this proposal for the other arbitrators to review. Bear in mind that this is decided by majority vote and there may still be changes; it also remains possible that it doesn't work out, in which case the most likely outcome is that this account would be blocked and you'd be asked to spend some time away from Wikipedia before appealing again. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. And many thanks to you and CBM for your constructive contributions. Carl (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft section for article on Incompleteness Theorems
If you want to propose something for inclusion you need to take the time to actually construct a context for what you want to include (this would likely include constructing at least a fully formed paragraph that provides context/explanation for the information)...so that it's potentially helpful to encyclopedia readers...but just saying, "put this quote in" is ridiculous and unhelpful..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Below is a draft section under the "Criticisms" part of the article.

Chaitin (1)
Gregory Chaitin criticized Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorems for being superficial and lacking insight. For example in the BBC scientific documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”, Chaitin said that in his considered judgment,
 * "[Gödel’s argument for incompleteness] was too superficial. It didn't get at the real heart of what was going on. It was more tantalizing than anything else. It was not a good reason for something so devastating and fundamental. It was too clever by half. It was too superficial. [It was based on the clever construction] “I'm unprovable.” So what? This doesn't give any insight how serious the problem is."

Suggestions for improvement on above are greatly appreciated.

Carl (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * the problem obviously is that what you've constructed literally says: (Here X says Y is superficial, "Y is superficial.") no explanation is offered as to what any of this is about, what is being suggested by it (no context, no full and coherent and helpful information)...and nobody can really understand what he or you are suggesting by the quote so it's unlikely anyone will come along to try to improve it...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a more fully formed proposal below.Carl (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Chaitin (2)
Gregory Chaitin criticized Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorems for being superficial and lacking insight. For example in the BBC scientific documentary “Dangerous Knowledge”, Chaitin said that in his considered judgment,
 * "[Gödel’s argument for incompleteness] was too superficial. It didn't get at the real heart of what was going on. It was more tantalizing than anything else. It was not a good reason for something so devastating and fundamental. It was too clever by half. It was too superficial. [It was based on the clever construction] “I'm unprovable.” So what? This doesn't give any insight how serious the problem is."

The thesis of Chaitin's criticism above is that incompleteness is a fundamental issue for formal systems that is not adequately addressed by Gödel’s proof based on his sentence “I'm unprovable.” Even Gödel himself agreed that the subsequent proof of incompleteness by Church/Turing based on computational undecidability was more fundamental in proving that there is no total recursive procedure that can decide provability of a proposition of the Peano/Dedekind theory ℕ of natural numbers. There must be an inferentially undecidable proposition for ℕ because otherwise provability of any proposition could be computationally decided by enumerating all theorems until the proposition or its negation occurs.

Carl (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * okay, this is a more proper and fully formed proposal for the article's talk page...it will likely still run into at least some problems...and people might still think it's going over the same ideas that were recently gone over...so may not have full patience for it...as far as part of the substance, it's true that Gödel felt that the results of Church/Turing were a beneficial contribution to his results; though certainly he, Church, or Turing would not agree much with Chaitin's statement...so it kind of mixes things up in a misleading way...68.48.241.158 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have adopted your suggestion in the update below. Carl (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * just keep in mind, editors will have to agree that A. your representations of Chaitin's beliefs are accurate and B. these beliefs are sufficiently notable at this time to warrant inclusion in the article...I think you'll clearly run into problems with B and may even run into problems with A....68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Although the above comment is valid, it is generic to all proposals to improve Wikipedia articles and it does not have any suggestions for improving the above proposal. Consequently, the above comment should be archived in order to facilitate discussion of the proposal. Carl (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Nagel and Newman book
A. "relationship to computability" section could potentially use new/different content, particularly more specific mention of Turing and his work (right now it does properly link to "halting problem") B. the sections about the philosophical implications of the proofs could use some expansion C. the criticisms sections are mostly there for historical curiosity significance (one is about a person who thought he beat Gödel to the proof, which he didn't..and the other two are about notable figures who famously misunderstood the proofs)..

Any new content would have to be both CORRECT and NOTABLE enough to warrant inclusion (based on consensus)...But if your motivation is based on inserting material that is objectively incorrect or not notable, you are entirely wasting your time...And you do make many statements that objectively on their face suggest you misunderstand some of the material...again, I highly recommend the Nagel and Newman book....68.48.241.158 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Nagel and Newman book is way obsolete. See articles in Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic for an up to date treatment of issues.  Carl (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it's not obsolete as to the unambiguous and uncontroversial fundamentals, which can't particularly change as the proof has already been written and it is QED..I assure you that you're launching some of your thinking from some misunderstandings about the fundamentals...68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic, Gödel's sentence I'm unprovable. is valid in Provability Logic but not in theories with strong parameterized types. However, Provability Logic is unsuitable as a mathematical foundation of Computer Science because it is first-order and lacks types.  Carl (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it's possible that some of what you state is true, that some of what you state is vague to the point of being meaningless, and some is simply wrong/misleading...I really have no idea..but, really, what's the point?68.48.241.158 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion is not progressing. It will be moved to the archive.  Carl (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Carl Hewitt unbanned with restrictions
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Critique of Gödel's approach to incompleteness theorem
from your user page, "Gödel proposed the sentence "I an not provable." as the true but unprovable sentence." In G's paper he briefly mentions in the introductory section the liar paradox and Richard's paradox as semantical analogues for his syntactical proof...only as an analogy...after the explanatory, introductory section he proceeds to lay out the entirely formal and syntactical proof...so, no, he didn't propose any such thing...this is entirely false..are you certain you understand specifically what his paper/proof is?? you seem to criticize it quite a bit for things it's not....68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Gödel did indeed propose the sentence I'm unprovable. as a true but unprovable sentence. However, the sentence  I'm unprovable. is not a proper sentence of mathematics because it is not grounded in mathematical objects such as integers, triangles, etc. In technical terms, the sentence is invalid because it does not have a proper strong parameterized type.  The same type restrictions also block the liar, Richard's, Russell's, and Girad's paradoxes.  See Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic.Carl (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * see, your statements on their face suggest you don't understand the actual content of Gödel's paper/proof...you're confusing the analogy made by him (and then used by a lot of popular explanations) with the actual formal and syntactical argument...(have you looked at his actual paper??)...the other problem I sense is you think the proof is about math/numbers/arithmetic when it's actually about formal systems and their ability to express math/numbers/arithmetic..it is a result about formal provability/formal systems..not mathematics...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * though it is about math in the sense that it demonstrates that arithmetic cannot be fully captured by a formal system...in any event, the reason I explain all this is your misunderstandings are distracting on that talk page...people can argue/debate the philosophical implications of the proofs (and perhaps there is content you'd like to add along these lines) but they can't misstate what the proofs objectively are/state..68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear 68.48.241.158
 * I suggest that you actually read Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic so that you can understand the mathematics.
 * Gödel's sentence I'm unprovable. is valid in Provability Logic and it is not valid in Mathematics because it is not grounded in Mathematical objects, for example, integers and triangles. Instead, there are other valid sentences that are true but unprovable in the Dedekind/Peano theory of natural numbers.
 * Carl (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gödel's "sentence" or string is "I'm unprovable" only by analogy...and the string is valid within the context of what his paper is about (ie formal systems)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "I'm unprovable." is a perfectly acceptable mathematical gloss for the sentence constructed using a fixed point in Provability Logic. However, fixed points on Mathematical sentences do not exist in Mathematics that is founded on strongly typed mathematical objects, e.g., complex numbers, rectangles, sentences, etc.'Carl (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the problem, seems to me, is you're under the impression that Gödel's results are something other or beyond what they are and are attempting to somehow criticize them based on this misunderstanding...the results are what they are...stating they're superficial or glib or anything else is fine but it doesn't change what the results are..68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The results are as I have stated above. You need to read Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic.Carl (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Also from your user page, "However, the sentence "I'm unprovable." is not a proper sentence of mathematics because it is not grounded in mathematical objects such as integers, triangles, etc." This statement is mostly just bizarre as opposed to being wrong (that is it's so bizarre it's difficult to even comment on whether it's right or wrong in any normal sense)...but it is wrong...the first part of the sentence misunderstands what the sentence or "string" actually is and the last part of the sentence misunderstands what a formal system is/what a formal system "says"...that is the formal string you're referring to doesn't even purport to be about mathematics anyway...so if your motivation in regards to the article are along these lines, it's going to be difficult (thankfully) to get any traction....68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm unprovable. is a sentence in Provability Logic which is untyped and consequently allows taking fixed points of untyped sentences to construct the sentence.  However, Provability Logic is not suitable for the mathematical foundations of Computer Science, which require strong parameterized types.  Consequently, I'm unprovable. is not a sentence in the mathematical foundations of Computer Science because it is not properly typed. Carl (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * you state the string "is not a proper sentence of mathematics"...the string doesn't even purport to be, so what are you talking about? the string is a demonstration about the formal system, not about mathematics...it's just that the formal system can be interpreted as expressing arithmetic...68.48.241.158 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, all valid sentences must be strongly typed. See articles in Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic. Carl (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * well, I don't know..perhaps you're discussing something that doesn't have much to do with the topic then...which is fine, but it just doesn't have much to do with the topic known as "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems," which are very well understood as far as what they say/demonstrate...what is of some debate, however, is the philosophical implications, if any...(keep in mind too that the consensus among experts is that Wittgenstein was clueless as far as the technical details of the proof and misunderstood what it demonstrated and what it purported to demonstrate)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the topic Incompleteness theorems directs to the article under discussion, it is fair to discuss incompleteness theorems in the broader context of foundations of Computer Science.
 * See articles in Vol. 52 of Studies in Logic for an up to date discussion of Wittgenstein's critique of Gödel's approach. Gödel's response to Wittgenstein's critique was to retreat into Provability Logic.
 * Carl (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the fundamental point you're after? Is it (A) that you think Gödel made some kind of error/that his proof is somehow wrong? (this doesn't seem to be your point). Is it (B) that you think some people tend to think it purports to demonstrate something other or beyond what it in fact demonstrates? (this could be relevant and there's even a section titled "appeals to theorems in other fields" which could benefit from expansion)...Or is it (C) that you disagree with what it in fact purports to demonstrate? (if this is the case, you're likely among the very fringe as what it purports to demonstrate is well understood, clear, and unambiguous to the properly versed)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point: This proposed addition is for the section on criticisms of Gödel's approach to the incompleteness theorem. Carl (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)tets of draft sections in Criticisms for article on Incompleteness Theorem

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Prof. Carl Hewitt


A tag has been placed on your user page, User:Prof. Carl Hewitt, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please make suggestions for any part of the content that you think can be restored without violating the ban on advertising. For example, would it be possible to restore a link to my homepage?  Carl (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC


 * I found his user page helpful in a way because it contained questionable statements about topics that this user has been attempting to edit in controversial ways...so it helped me see where he was coming from; to see that he's attempting to insert material based on a misunderstanding about the topic imo...certainly it's a bunch of self-created vanity stuff..but I see no harm....what I DON'T LIKE is that this user has been inappropriately erasing/altering discussion from his talk page...and claiming to be archiving it (though it appears to me he's simply erased it)....68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As it said on the user page that was objected to, the intent was to be helpful to Wikipedia editors.
 * Material that is not on point in making specific suggestions for improving proposals to improve articles is archived in the archive subpage of this page.  Carl (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Carl (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Theroadislong, the material objected to was moved to the talk page of the article Carl Hewitt for consideration of possible future inclusion in the article. Carl (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like a reasonable suggestion but I didn't make it? Theroadislong (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that moving the content was your intent. Would you like to restore the user page?  Carl (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tagged your user page for speedy deletion because it was an entirely inappropriate use of the page. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the content was inappropriate for my user page and so I removed the inappropriate content from my user page before my user page was deleted and moved the content to the talk page of Carl Hewitt for possible inclusion in that article. Consequently, the content of my user page was entirely appropriate at the time when it was deleted.  So would it be possible to restore my entirely appropriate user (typo corrected here) page? Carl (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you should be able to at least create a new one that is more inline with policy,...(I personally didn't see the big deal about it...I guess they don't want it to be as promotional of yourself and your work...but more just state who you are, and even link to your Wikipedia article etc)...but note that your talk page hasn't been removed at all (this is where we are right now!)..68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I corrected the typo in the above comment.  It was my user page that was deleted, not the talk page of my user page where we are at now.  Carl (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * right, and note that user pages aren't functionally necessary for the Wikipedia project whereas talk pages are...though I would think you should still be able to create a new one...you may have to inquire about how to go about this...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From the message on the deleted page, it looks like I am not allowed to recreate it.  Carl (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, you may want to query one of the help desks etc...explicit policy on user pages is widely violated...but people generally don't care that much as Wikipedia user pages simply aren't that important/aren't indexed etc...I didn't see anything overly wrong about yours...it's not like you were explicitly advertising a product for sale or something...it's possible you simply have more people watching you as you have a long history of not getting along with Wikipedia culture/policy (as I'm sure even you'd agree)...68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think that the page was deleted by mistake since all of the content that Theroadislong considered inappropriate had been removed from the page before it was deleted. Carl (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

New article
New article created that is less substantial than original one so it may pass review. Feel free to make suggestions below. Carl (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Prof. Carl Hewitt


A tag has been placed on User:Prof. Carl Hewitt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Carl (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I reduced the content in order to make it more acceptable. What is it that I am allowed to say on the user page? Suggestions for improvement are greatly appreciated. Carl (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You appear to be trying to create an article about yourself again, on your user page, your user page is for telling us more about your interests relating to Wikipedia not for self promotion. see WP:USERPAGE Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I further reduced the content. Should I mention that there is a Wikipedia article about me?  Carl (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * better but why do you write in the third person? Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion! Carl (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can certainly place information about your interests, but not disputed information about yourself which might be considered for your article.
 * You certainly should mention that there is a Wikipedia article about you. I think there's a template for that, but adding in a "See also" section is also appropriate.  Something like:
 * ==See also ==
 * Carl Hewitt
 * Some editors merely add a sentence:
 * There is a Wikipedia article about me at Carl Hewitt.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Carl (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Reviews and even letters to the editor of CACM have been extremely important in Computer Science
Reviews and even letter to the editor of CACM have been extremely important in Computer Science. For example, Church's review of Turing's article "On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem" was extremely influential. Also, Dijkstra's letter "Go-to statement considered harmful" initiated an important debate. Such reviews and letters can be important because they are succinct and to the point. They have an important role that is above and beyond that of regular articles (which also can be important). Sometimes the message doesn't warrant a whole article. Carl (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that reviews and letters are peer-reviewed? They can be important (and possibly reliable) as expert opinions, but, if the items are not reviewed by CACM editors in a similar way to the way articles are reviewed, (that may be weaker than "peer-reviewed"), they are only "reliable" as expert opinions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviews and letters to the editor of CACM can be as authoritative as articles. Just because an article has been "peer-reviewed" does not necessarily make it more authoritative.  Whether of not a review, article, or letter to the editor is authoritative is judged after publication, not before.  Carl (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Paraphrasing WP:RS, the determination as to whether a source is "reliable" for content depends on the content to be sourced; the piece of work, itself; the author; and the publication. For "letters", the publication is not considered a significant factor, as it/they usually only edit for interest, not accuracy.  The publication can be taken into account for the purpose of assessing importance/significance/notability, but should not be taken into account for the purpose of assessing reliability, unless the publication makes a reasonable amount of editorial review for accuracy.
 * What you mean by "authoritative" seems to be more similar to the Wikipedia concept of "importance" than the Wikipedia concept of "reliability". But those are distinct concepts on Wikipedia.  If I'm wrong as to what you mean by "authoritative", please explain.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Authoritative" is not the same as "Important" because an obscure publication can be authoritative but unimportant. The publication can be significant in judging authoritativeness of reviews and letters to the editor.  For example, it was extremely significant to authoritativeness that Church's review of Turing's article was published in the Journal of Symbolic Logic and that Dijkstra's letter was published in CACM.  Because Dijkstra's letter was authoritative it should be usable as a reference in Wikipedia even though it is not reasonable to say that it is "reliable".
 * Unfortunately, being "reliable" is too easily confused with being "true". Carl (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Being "authoritative" is also easily confused with being "true". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "authoritative"? Given that Church and Dijkstra were authorities (as well as being experts) in the appropriate fields, it has no bearing on what I would call "authoritative" that JSL or CACM chose to publish the letters.  If JSL or CACM chose to publish them as articles, that would add to authoritativeness.
 * Or perhaps, you have a mistaken idea of how journals such as JSL and CACM select and edit letters for publication. Perhaps your journal thoroughly reviews letters for accuracy and plagiarism; most do not.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Being authoritative carries authority but may not be true or "reliable". Church's review and Dijkstra's letter were not in the correct format to be published as articles in their respective journals.  However, both were carefully vetted by the journals before publication.  If they had contained obvious plagiarism, they would not have been published.  If Church's review had contained errors, then it would have been withdrawn or amended.  Dijkstra's letter provoked considerable correspondence in CACM.  Because Dijkstra's letter is authoritative it should usable as a reference in Wikipedia even though it cannot reasonable be said to be "reliable". Carl (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've edited a comment to which I replied.  AGAIN.  This is not appropriate behavior.
 * As you have not provided a definition of "authoritative", it may be that what you call "authoritative" is what we call "reliable". However, in the journals I'm familiar with, that a statement was published as a letter to the journal does not add to it being "authoritative", but only to it being considered interesting or important by the journal.  Perhaps computer science is different than other scientific fields in that respect, also.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Being authoritative means having authority. Dijkstra's letter the editor "Go-to statement considered harmful" proved to be extremely authoritative because of subsequent discussion and reaction in CACM and subsequent authoritative publications.  There is general consensus in computer science that Dijkstra's letter proved to be "authoritative" but it would be incorrect to say that the letter is "reliable." Carl (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for Wikipedia Policy on Authoritative (sometimes called "Reliable") Sources
What you might mean by "Authoritative" does not seem similar to what we mean by "Reliable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Authoritative" is not as apriori judgmental of content as "reliable" which has intimations of being "true". "Authoritative" may be more suitable for Wikipedia because it does not as strongly take sides in content disputes.  Carl (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this, "authoritative" may be a better word choice than "reliable". A problem, is that, although "reliable" has the connotation of "truth", "authoritative" seems to have the connotation that it assets its importance/significance, rather than it actually being important or significant.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a good point! Being "authoritative" must be determined on a case by case basis.
 * As I have said elsewhere on Wikipedia, Being authoritative means having authority. Dijkstra's letter the editor "Go-to statement considered harmful" proved to be extremely authoritative because of subsequent discussion and reaction in CACM and subsequent authoritative publications.  There is general consensus in computer science that Dijkstra's letter proved to be "authoritative" but it would be incorrect to say that the letter is "reliable."
 * Carl (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

archiving content
you shouldn't particularly be erasing comments (yours or others) from your talk page; it's against policy...it's not about not liking how a conversation goes and wanting to start afresh...the reason being it could be of note to other editors who interact with you in the future for the purpose of improving Wikipedia articles...you also shouldn't be renaming other people's thread titles...this isn't a facebook or myspace page; it's all in place solely for working on Wikipedia articles....I may revert back some of what you erased..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Content should be archived that is not on point with specific suggestions for improving the proposals on this page. Editors are welcome to assist in archiving content that is not specifically on point. Carl (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * everything was substantive/on point...you can erase personal attacks or collapse off point discussion...you can also archive old discussion...which I don't think you've actually done...where is the archive you created? I think you've just erased things...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Being on point in this case is means making specific suggestions for improving a proposal for a change in a Wikipedia article. The archive is in the usual place as a subpage of this page.  Of course, I may have made errors in archiving, which editors are free to correct.  Carl (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was substantively discussing your proposal for additional content, of course..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to make specific suggestions for improving the proposals together with arguments for your specific suggestions. Carl (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it is perfectly acceptable to substantively propose only that your proposals aren't yet proper for the article..(ie I'm not required to try to make your proposals better)68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose on this talk page is to improve proposals for correcting articles. You can object to the proposals (without making constructive suggestions) on the talk page of the article when a proposal is actually on the talk page of an article.  Carl (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC
 * that's not really what the purpose of this talk page is (or any talk page is)...you can learn what the purpose of a talk page is by reading the policy articles about it...(you can't unilaterally declare what the purpose of your talk page is)...however, I don't mind only engaging you on the article talk page...all I was doing was taking the time to pay attention to your thoughts..68.48.241.158 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors are perfectly welcome to make constructive suggestions for improving the proposals on this talk page so that the proposals can be improved.  Carl (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the anon is not exactly correct. You are allowed to remove material from your talk page (provided you also remove all later replies, including your own), but it is not encouraged, even if you (correctly or incorrectly) think the comments are not on point.  The only entries you are encouraged to remove from your, or any, talk page are violations of WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, and perhaps WP:NPA.
 * However, you are also incorrect: the purpose of the talk page includes discussion of whether the material on the talk page is proper.  This is not a strongly typed environment.  We don't have Talk:User talk:Prof Carl Hewitt (except in rare situations, where a talk page is protected, such as Talk:Carl Hewitt, we might have an unprotected Talk:Carl Hewitt/Talk).  In general, though, proposals should be made on pages such as User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/Incompleteness, with discussion of the proposal (including comments that it is not ready for implementation) in User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt/Incompleteness.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be great if we could keep discussions of proposals on this page on how to improve articles organized in some fashion. To do this, it is necessary to archive old and irrelevant comments so that discussion can proceed in an organized way. I am creating User talk:Prof. Carl Hewitt/archive/incompleteness as a place where editors can archive old and irrelevant discussion. Of course, none of the proposals on this page are ready for implementation. When a proposal is ready for consideration for implementation, it should be placed on the talk page of the article.  Carl (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests for article Carl Hewitt
Hi Mr. Hewitt, I've moved your edit request into your sandbox User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/sandbox, which is outside the article namespace, and which you can freely edit. If you have a working draft in the sandbox, you can consider re-posting an edit request with a link to your sandbox for an editor to look into. I hope this helps! Thanks. — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 01:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I moved to requests to  User:Prof. Carl Hewitt/EditRequestsForArticleCarlHewitt to avoid confusion about "sandbox". Others are welcome to improve the edit requests and to coordinate with other edit requests for the the article Carl Hewitt.  Carl (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency Robust Logic
Dear Prof. Hewitt,

In the interest of the encyclopedia, I am ordering Hewitt & Woods 2015 for myself. My personal interest is in discovering the relationship of your work to that of Norman Foo 1994 "Convex Predicates and Induction". Foo lived 1943-2015. Foo cites Gardenfors 1990. If no one beats me to it, I could be another non-COI editor for the article on paraconsistent logic. If I turn out to be the only other editor for this effort, please be patient while I work through your material. Or, if others pop up, we could all work together.

Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 13:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for ordering the book and the link to Foo's article.
 * You should also note that CBM has recently constructively contributed to this article.
 * Carl (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, I have made no legal threat. My comment was "Of course, as in the past, these things are litigated in the court of public opinion where publications have to get around censorship that is practiced in various places."
 * Carl (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get a chance to support you on this issue. However, the "court of public opinion" has little jurisdiction on Wikipedia, unless reported by reliable sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arthur!
 * Carl (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for editing at Wikipedia (as well as for all your good work within the history of computer programming). It certainly would be nice if more major professionals, both in their fields and out, would join and edit here. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome Randy! Unfortunately, professionals are often treated badly on Wikipedia :-(  Consequently, it is difficult to recruit them.
 * Carl (talk)