User talk:Chalst

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please click here to leave me a new message.


Archives:

Contents

[edit] Advice

Hello. Please note: although [[theory|theories]] is good usage, [[theorem|theorems]] is needlessly complicated, since [[theorem]]s makes the whole word, not just the part in brackets, appear as a clickable link, but what it links to is just the part in brackets. Similarly [[logic]]al, [[Russia]]n, [[hyphen]]ated, [[apocrypha]]l,, etc. Michael Hardy 00:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was sort of aware of that, but somehow it never seemed to affect my editing... ---- Charles Stewart 00:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for your message — I'm tied up at the moment preparing a talk that I've left 'til the last moment, but I'll certainly respond more fully at the weekend (the talk's on Thursday...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up the vandalism on my Talk page. I've just got back from Cambridge, and am ready to start looking at the pages, etc., towards which you pointed me. I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the supposed demandingness objection, you might be intersted in this paper(PDF file). Hare was, roughly, what I'd call a moral objectivist (in the style of Wiggins, McDowell, and Hume (as Wiggins and I read him), which is a view that fits very naturally with utilitarianism, and which makes Hare's two-level approach very straightforward, I think.
As to Logic, I'm not really up on the business of 'featured article status'; I've just tidied it here and there (making spacing after headings consistent, adding a bit of detail on the Greek etymology, etc.) There are one or two things that I might like to see added, but I'll get back to you when I've thought about them a little more. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Dummett

Most pages for knights don't have the "Sir" in the article title - I've just been going through and standardising the few (10%?) that do. (The exception seems to be baronetcies, where there's a lot of inconsistency, so I'm generally leaving those.) It's not that important either way, I suppose, although I note that most of the incoming links in this case are for Michael Dummett, not Sir Michael Dummett, suggesting he's still well known under that name. sjorford →•← 12:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advogato trust metric link

wkearney's trust markup schema --- mox/141.20.201.199

[edit] Removal from VfD

Hi there! Via the RfC on Grider I read your request on Chrisf's talk page. I just wanted to point out that several processes for 'early removal from VfD' (i.e. speedy keep-ing) have been shot down by consensus. Read the talk pages on Deletion Policy and VfD for details (and also, the cat for rejected policies; sorry but WP namespace isn't entirely organized). I believe you are right that the article won't be deleted, therefore you can keep editing it (or merging or whatever) and in a week or so the VfD notice will be removed by some admin. No worries :) Radiant_* 15:15, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • I see someone beat me to the response, but still ... Indeed, my user page is not the place to go for VfD removals. Best you can do is sit it out, and hope that you get consensus to keep. Seems to be going that way ... Chris 21:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Mathematics Project Participants List

Hi Charles.

In case you didn't follow the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Reformat of Participants list, I'm wanted to let you know that I've converted the "WikiProject Mathematics Participants List" into a table. It is now alphabetical, includes links to the participant's talk page and contribution list, and has a field for "Areas of Interest". I thought you might want to check and/or update your entry.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 22:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GRider

Regarding GRider's 'Socratic' VfD nominations and the ensuing reactions by voters, please read and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GRider2. Thanks. Radiant_* 10:26, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logic

I´m in Argentina for a few weeks (not a fact which I want to advertise too loudly since when the mice are away, CT will play) so I can't do too much on this. CSTAR.

Ok. I quietly wish you all the best for your travels, over here from my talk page... Charles Stewart 16:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poke

Still interested in moving this definition to an article? Islamofascism. It apparently deserves one (or maybe not) and doing so would allow for a shorter definition in the list. No big deal. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Cheers, -Willmcw 02:51, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
OK, so many apologies. I will forevermore associated poking with hornet's nests and sleeping dogs. Abjectly yours, -Willmcw 10:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am me

Just a note to myself: I edited possible worlds as User:69.177.32.43

[edit] Hello from Germany

Hello Charles, of course I don´t like the kind of user "Schlesier" either. It seems they sometimes use the english Wikipedia as some kind of "asylum", because we´ve managed to quiet them down for a while.

What can I do for you? If he is a permanent edit warrior, in German Wikipedia we would make a coordinated effort to stop him:

  • ask him to stop his behavior in clear (non-insulting) words on his discussion page
  • revert his edits unless he gives evidence for them
  • ask for help on the help-page (where many users look at it)
  • ask an Admin to close his account for a while (vandalism)
  • and if this doesn´t help, call for moderation conflict and then eventually unlimited close-down ("Sperre", don´t know the english word).


Since the 7 months I´m with German Wikipedia, the situation with right wing users has calmed down because we were quiet alert and watching and commenting there edit actions as soon as they ocurred. "We" is just a bunch of engaged guys like me, meeting on f.e. de:Benutzer Diskussion:Griesgram/Rechtsextremismus. There we have exchanged experiences and warn each other if some idiot vandalizes sensitive articles or wants to prove he is a nerve racking heroe. It works quite good. Often these guys are not able to stand open discussion and offered Wikipedia resolution channels, so they quit themselves.

Hope I could help again, greetings from "old Europe". Jesusfreund 10:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schlesier

I have had no "problems" with Schlesier other than a POV which I do not agree with and a little problem with English, eg not knowing that there is only one word in English for Warsaw (just as there is for Walsall ;-) )and not willing to change his (her?) mind when this is pointed out.

He has been doing some work on Federation of Expellees#Member organizations in those pages he has linked to the page Prussian Holocaust which is redirected to the more neutral page name of Evacuation of East Prussia, a name he chooses not to use. One of the societies listed is the "Society of Germans from Hungary" in which he included a link to the Prussian Holocaust. When the link was changed to German exodus from Eastern Europe he choose to revert to PH even though Hungary was not part of Prussia. This suggests that he was using the link for its emotive wording not accuracy. Philip Baird Shearer 16:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello Charles: There is some good evidence that "Schlesier" is identical with de:Benutzer:Schlesier2, also known as de:Benutzer:Preusse, perhaps also identical with de:Benutzer:Burschenschafter. Comparing their themes, articles and edit-language, there´s pretty much coincidence.
Since "Schlesier2" has no edits any more on German Wikipedia since around October 4, it might well be that he is now trying to disturb you with the same issues. His interest last year also was to force German name spelling on Polish cities.
It seems to me, though, you are dealing with him in the right manner. His/her voting procedures are ridicoulous, but if he loses the vote, so what. German wikipedians usually ignore these guys or, if their get penetrant, treat them as vandals.
If there´s more problem coming - like if he gets the supporters he calls for on his page - then let me know about it. The Wikipedia project on German trolls at english Wikipedia would make sense, if this is an increasing and spreading problem. I have put him in our right extremism watch page (the one I told you about) and more people know about him by now. Don´t let these guys disturb you too much, they aren´t worth it. Greetings! Jesusfreund 22:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: If I was you, I would put the redirect "Prussian Holocaust" on the quick deletion list. It´s no encyclopedic theme whatsoever, just plain POV. (My grand parents were expelled from East Prussia also, I know what I´m talking about.)
PS: It´s a He, calls himself "Nicolai" (former Nick-Account: "Nico") at de:Benutzer:Preusse. Compare his edits, and there´s little doubt left. Jesusfreund 20:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alasdair MacIntyre

Hi Charles, thanks for your note about the above, which is now back in its original place. I made the virtue ethics => moral philosophy change because at the time there was no explanation of the difference between virtue ethics and any other kind, only a link to virtue ethics, which also doesn't really explain the difference for the non-philosopher. Philosophers like MacIntyre certainly have contributed to the recent (i.e. last 15-20 years) increase in interest in moral philosophy, so I felt my edit retained accuracy. However, I see you've expanded a little to say what virtue ethics is, which has improved the section, and I expanded very slightly again today by distinguishing it from deontological ethics and utilitarianism. My apologies for having caused confusion. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust

I count 4 keep votes versus 12 delete votes: how does this lead to no consensus? --Charles Stewart 20:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This had been hanging around for something over a week after being removed from VfD, and nobody else actioned it as a delete. 12 out of 16 makes only 75%. I would like something nearer 80% to delete. This was an extremely controversial listing, there was no consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if you might join the discussion at Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia. Sam Spade and Chammy Koala keep on reverting to a version which refers to it as the "Prussian Holocaust." john k 15:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Hello Charles! I´m sorry it didn´t work. To me some strange reactions and arguments turned up in this quarrel. There is definitely something unbalanced in some minds if a propaganda term is defended that way:

  • "Jews did not happen to put a trademark upon it, and I am sure over time more 'microholocausts' will appear. The fact that the term is someone's propaganda effort is irrelevant. Want it or not, neonazis are visible, and their terminology must be known." (Mikkilai)

I feel then you should go ahead, make an article out of it and clearly point out in it that neonazis are visible on english wikipedia and that it is not possible at the moment not to support their propaganda language here.

And why? Because someone makes a lonely decision dependent on statistically missing 5%. If he had counted correctly, only 4 from 14 including the no voters voted "keep". Also, at least two of them were proven wrong in the process of arguing. The NPOV is not based on percentages but on truth. My POV, I know. - Heartful greatings! Jesusfreund 20:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote

Please consider voting at:

Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory

to rename articles that use the pejorative term "Conspiracy theory" to denigrate the content of the article.

Do the titles of WP articles generally pass partisan judgment on the subject under discussion? Should they? BrandonYusufToropov 02:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move of FOPC to FOL

Done. Were everything in WP so devoid of controversy. --CSTAR 16:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category Issues

Charles, I'm not going to fight a reversion war with you, but I'm not going to let you impose your opinions on me either. We need to come up with a structure for the Logic subcategories we can both live with. I'm willing to compromise on some issues, but you're going to have to give a little too. In particular, you're going to have to live with the existence of Formal Logic as a subcategory. I'm all for flattening the category tree, but not at the expense of a meaningful organization. ----Isaac R 18:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, that was rude and didn't pay proper attention to the issues you raised, so I take it back, apologize, and hope you'll forget I said it.

So, here's the central problem... oops I just saw your suggestion that we move this to Category_talk:Logic. You're right, I'll go there now. ---Isaac R 18:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Charles

Thank you for your note.

Among other things, I am interested in constructive logic as a foundation of reasoning. Logic is evolving and while we should understand its history, we shouldn't get stuck in the past. I am excited about Type Theory, because it reflects the way I think. I also believe it is enormously useful for very practical things like the construction of correct software, see Why Dependent Types Matter.

I see you have done the page on Dana Scott. I have started one on Per Martin-Löf, but I guess I have to ask him for his CV... I know he was 60 2 years ago, because there was some sort of birthday seminar in Nijmegen.

--Thorsten 20:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] My non-article/Logic

:) thanks... I think... and no prob as to the praise, it was a very well worded argument. Grutness...wha? 02:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of science

I would say that the preeminent source for the growth of knowledge is children's play, but perhaps that's a bit pedantic of me. Did you find the old wording too long and indirect?--Joel 00:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] importance of graph homomorphisms

Hello, Charles.

I noticed your mention of "active research interests that involve various bits of category theory (eg. their use in describing graphs eg. with morphisms=graph homomorphisms"

so I decided to write you.

I am an algebraic topologist by training. I am very interested in thinking about the category of graphs, especially about algebriac invariants of graphs, with respect to graph homomorphisms (modelled on the success of algebraic topology: algebriac invariants of spaces, with respect to continuous maps).

I am also trying to get a sense of what works well in a wiki. I intend to start a small wiki with some undergraduate students this summer, to help them organize their research on some graph theory projects. Have you heard of anyone using wikis in a research group?

Today I have been exploring Wikipedia and the web to get ideas about how to produce and include pictures in wiki math pages, in a form that could also be easily used in TeX articles. Do you have any suggestions about that? I work in Mac OSX.

By the way, I have not "created an account" with Wikipdeia. Is that a recommended first step?

Terry Bisson <email address in page history>

[edit] National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD)

I do not follow the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) closely, But if you are in danger of breaking the 3 revert rule, or just need someone else to revert a Dresden edit to show support, then post a message on my talk page. Philip Baird Shearer 08:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bayesian categorizing

Hi, I've been researching your idea of using Bayesian categorizing and I must say I'm intrigued. However, this is my first experience with it. I read your user page and noticed your interests; would you be interested in discussing the problem at hand? Its been quite interesting to try to solve and I'd love a chance to geek out about it with someone. Just an idea. Triddle June 29, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

[edit] Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thank you Charles for your inquiry and since I am new to usertalk pages I do hope you receive this reply. Please follow the procedure below to access the document in question. Since the the web site used javascript, I could not provide a URL. If after this you still cannot access I will gladly send the file to you directly. (P.S.. If you get this please let me know so this way I can know that I am not having a conversation with myself.. )


1) Access the following page [1]

2) Select "Sprechbeiträge" on the left to expand.

3) Select "Sprecher"

4) Select the letter ‘G”

The document I was referring to will be on the first page of results approximately the 14th down under the heading:

Veranstaltung

Verhalten der Sächsischen Staatsregierung und des Landtages zu Erinnerungs- und Gedenkveranstaltungen zum 60. Jahrestag der anglo-amerikanischen Terror-Angriffe auf die sächsische Landeshauptstadt Dresden

AktDeb NPD PlPr 4/8 21.01.2005 S.460

PlPr 4/8 S. 462 463

The pages most likely of interest would start at pg. 17 through perhaps 21 Once the file is accessed you should be able to save a copy as I did.

Regards,

Joanneva

[edit] tfd main / tfd subarticleof

Hi Charles, I saw you voted keep for the main templates and want to reword. My first attempt at a reword had some support, but it is probably not going to survive tfd. Perhaps you could take a look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_Deletion#Other_wording. --MarSch 7 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Edward Buckner's Website

Hi Charles. I was wondering what you thought about several external links to pages on this website that Dbuckner has been adding to several articles: Square of opposition, Ontological commitment, Infinity, Term logic, Class (philosophy) and History of logic. I removed a similar link in Class (set theory). But I though I'd ask your opinion about the others. Paul August ☎ 14:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Charles. Paul August ☎ 03:38, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] islamofascism

RE: your list of claims to have coined the term "islamofascist/m". The earliest documented use I've been able to trace is that by Malise Ruthven in an article in The Independent of 8th September 1990 (page 15). He says: "Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say "Islamo-fascism", is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan." I believe this trumps the claim of anyone else so far mentioned. --Dannyno 14:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belated Reply

A very belated reply to your query: I'm a recent math/computer science graduate and I'm a researcher in user interfaces and information organization. I've been interested in type theory and programming language design for several years now, and I've seen you before by way of graydon's diary, which I read periodically. added: by User:Luke stebbing

[edit] Project on Logic

Hi again. In addition to my comments on linking (the criteria for which I now understand) I also made some comments on your Logic project. Any thoughts on this. The logic section is a terrible mess

Edward Buckner (user dbuckner)

[edit] Science pearls

Hello,

Since you contributed in the past to the publications’ lists, I thought that you might be interested in this new project. I’ll be glad if you will continue contributing. Thanks,APH 11:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your view is requested

I am contacting logged-in users who have taken an interest in, or edited, Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith, and asking them to respond to a question I have placed on that page which goes to the policy of WP:AGF.

Thanks in advance. paul klenk 23:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Hi Charles, welcome back. I've replied to you message on my talk page there. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of Aristotelian Logic and Term Logic

I would help you merge the two articles together under the name Term Logic. And as for the article, it is an essay that i wrote for school and i contributed to Wikipedia by adding it, so I had to do it anyway... A small Question, if I may. How do you insert on your personal page that thing whisc says you have good german knowledge and a little bit of french? Is there a template for making Pages of the type User:XXXX? Daniel Savoiu.

(Hopefully Chalst won't mind my putting this here) Random advice: While the help pages will (somewhere) cover that, I've found the quickest way find out how to do something I find on a page is to select "edit this page", view what they really did on the page in the edit box, and then select cancel so you don't change the page. Nahaj 17:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Logic Forum

Hello, Charles!

I'd like to invite you to the new Indian Logic Forum. We have also the idea of starting a wiki-based Nyaya-kosa that might be of interest to you.

Greetings, and thank you for the IL-related articles posted on Wikipedia.

PG

[edit] Vandalism reverting George Orwell

Hi, thanks very much for your fix on the George Orwell page. The page was vandalized, then someone (the editor before you) attempted to undo the vandalizing by re-editing rather than reverting, hence the errors crept in to the article. It's probably worth having a look at diffs in this kind of situation. If you're not sure how to revert vandalism, please see the link on my user page. Hope this is helpful. --DannyWilde 22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] please vote

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lists of mathematical topics

(It seems distinctly possible that only illiterates will vote on this, if one judges by what's there now. But ignore this comment....) Michael Hardy 04:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chancellor of Germany II: Foreign Office (Germany)

Thanks for doing what needed to be done on 3RR: User:Varizer, User:Miroslawa and User:212.185.62.98 at Chancellor of Germany [2]. Another project from 212.185.62.98, the same piece of revisionism on Foreign Office (Germany) has been taken up with suspicious haste by User:216.253.3.108. Some questions, if you are interested:

  • Might either of these IP addresses be the same as that/those used by User:Miroslawa?
  • Another of 212.185.62.98's projects was at National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), namely putting in a discredited Soviet estimate for the dead of the WWII Dresden bombing. This is a favourite of right-wing extremists in Germany, who like to claim a moral equivalence between that and the Shoah. This edit has appeared with tiresome regularity over the past year, with a series of different IP addresses. Is there any way to find out if these might come from the same source? I have beautiful dreams of IP bans quickly following these edits...

Thanks --- Charles Stewart 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope, not at the moment. But I'll keep an eye on the lot. --fvw* 17:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cantorian set theory

Hi Charles,

I saw your remarks on Talk:Controversy over Cantor's Theory and it occurs to me that you may know something more than I do about Cantor's historical views. I have issues with statements made in a number of places on WP about how Cantor developed "naive set theory", that naive set theory has implicit in it the Russell paradox, and that the fix for this was axiomatic set theory, according to which (going by the articles) sets would be no more than "whatever satisfies the axioms".

I have a general notion, possibly fallacious, that this is wrong historically. See the quote of Cantor's I posted at Talk:Russell's paradox#Disputed. If it's true that Cantor took an "extensional" or "combinatorial" view of sets, as opposed to Frege's intensional view, then the Russell paradox is not at all inherent in Cantor's conception. But I don't know what Cantor actually thought (I suspect that these issues were not as clear at the time).

From the combinatorial view of sets, it's not such a big step to the von Neumann hierarchy, so I'm not sure that part of your remarks is accurate. --Trovatore 19:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hewitt

I think it's likely Hewitt's article will be deleted in the next few days. One idea in the article should have been salvaged as per my last intervention in the discussion page (and of course the article should have been renamed). I am afraid this is not the last of the Hewitt problems. As someone pointed out, his stuff is leaking out to other articles. His article on the Scientific Community Metaphor is particularly bad.--CSTAR 05:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

PS by that I mean not that the idea is wrong, but much of that article (Scientific Community Metaphor) seems too self-promoting and some of it is too speculative.--CSTAR 17:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The idea that Hewitt may not be acting in good faith has passed my mind.--CSTAR 04:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Charles - Thanks for your support on my recent RfA and for your kind comments. I hope that I will used the mop well! Please ask, if you ever need anything. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glorantha Conventions

I thoroughly recommend the Tentacles convention in Bacharach. I go every year, and it is a truly wonderful experience. Greg is there about two-thirds of the time, and when he isn't, they usually get Sandy Petersen, and sometimes both. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advogato

You executed the delete on the above speedy: there were 2 delete votes, 1 keep vote, and one comment (no vote) observing that the reason for the speedy were probably not valid. That doesn't look like a consensus to me. I put a request to reinstate the article on User talk:Radiant! --- Charles Stewart 14:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The article in question was deleted via a VfD discussion and not a speedy delete. Taking a look back as the VfD discussion, I count 3 delete votes (the nominator and two others) and 1 keep vote with the deletes all claiming the article as it existed constituted advertising. This still appears to be a valid consensus and I stand by my decision to delete the article. If you still disagree and wish to have the article restored in the form that existed before deletion, please feel free to list this article at Wikipedia:Deletion review. There is also no prohibition against creating a new article on the subject as long as the new article is substantially different from the previous. The bulk of the text from the old article is present in the VfD discussion in case you wish to pursue creation of a new article. --Allen3 talk 17:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would it be acceptable if I simply put the document in your userspace? I'm not convinced as to its usefulness in building an encyclopedia, so if you personally find it useful the simplest thing to do would be to put it there. Radiant_>|< 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One month old edit on Logic

You wrote: This edit, which looks robot assisted, turned single spaces after title headings into double spaces. I've fixed it now; be more careful in future. --- Charles Stewart 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I used no robot on that. Also, I don't really understand what the problem was. Could you explain, so that I don't repeat it in the future? Karol 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Karol 18:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advogato templates

I think it's an excellent idea for Advogato members to try to network through Wikipedia, and noticing your, erm, advocacy on WP:VFU over the old Wikipedia:Advogato template I thought I'd do something about it.

I made copies of the template:User en series of templates for Advogato members. They are:

These all have their associated categories, which are subcategories of Category:User advogato, which in its turn belongs to Category: Wikipedian programmers.

So if you were an advogato journeyer, for instance, and your Advogato account name was fredbloggs, you'd edit your user page to add the following text:

{{User advogato-2|fredbloggs}}

Please feel free to use! User:Kelly Martin is a certified master and I'll ask her to use one of the templates, too. Hopefully we can contact others so that we can coordinate relevant work on Wikipedia, such as articles on free software. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Principle of correction

I agree with this principle to a limited extent. In fact, I suppose I agree to it as far as {{sofixit}} goes. I do not agree that it means that someone should take some action other than their preferred one just because another action is simpler. Someone may prefer a page deleted when a merge might be possible for example, when they don't think the material should remain in any form. On the other hand, if what someone wants to achieve can be identically achieved by some simpler means then it should be done that way. Usually the reason they have done it the hard way is being unaware of the easier way, and pointing them in the right direction is all that is needed. My immediato-eventualism is not an excuse for keeping a rotten article simply because editing it into a completely new form at an arbitrary future time-point is 'easier' than deleting it and starting again. My immediatio-eventualism stems from a belief that first impressions count (especially the first three or four). I would prefer a user find no article on someone's high-school band than an obviously silly one.

However, I think your own principle applies to the DRV debate. You needn't be there, and needn't campaign for its restoration. Just make a WikiProject, or live with the templates and categories. Or ask that it be userfied, or something. If what you really want is the list of users that was in it so that you can populate the category, you can probably just ask for it. But I continue to disagree that there was anything wrong with the process for the reasons I have already described and will not repeat.

Lying? No, have neither tacitly nor indirectly accused you of such a thing. I don't see how any part of your nomination on DRV contains anything I could use for that purpose even supposing I were to want to. So I mentioned that it had an advertising lean to it — well, the opening sentence did contain advertising-style language, although you did not write for that purpose, and the rationale of the page was far from clear owing to its construction and titling. It is apparent, though, particularly with your activity on DRV that it did not serve any advertisment purpose.

Evasion and ignorification? No. I choose when I will edit and where and in what manner, and I don't think I have anything to add to the DRV debate. -Splashtalk 07:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advogato

I've undeleted the page and moved it into your userspace, at User:Chalst/Advogato. Since there's now a category system, I'd recommend that the information from that page be added to the top of the category. Yours, Radiant_>|< 22:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ending Afds

Hi Chalst. I was really impressively surprised by the AfD debate. I hope something constructive emerges/d from it. To your question, well, partly yes and partly no. I should have said that there is no recent precedent for extending an AfD by internal poll. Anyway, yes admins will (or, at least, should) take account of all comments made before they close the AfD, whenever that is. But no, they don't generally extend debates until they 'die down' — only until someone finds the time to close them. The backlog at WP:AFD/Old is usually at least two or three days, so typically AfDs last at least 7 days and often longer. But the debate can be closed at any moment after 5 days, whether or not the debate is running (it can always be moved to talk pages). If we let them run and run, there'd be some AfDs that never ended and that'd be incongruous with the ability to delete things. Proposals have been variously mulled over about doing something along these lines, though.

Debates are sometimes extended for lack of participation, but that's a different question. -Splashtalk 16:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tautology

Your comment for the revert made little sense. First, the article starts off with "In logic, a tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition" with emphasis on 'logic'--so a more rigorous and precise notion involving interpretations (or valuations) is required. Second the word stems from Wittgenstein wrt to logistic systems. Third, statements true by definition are called 'analytic', not tautologous.

The next sentence reads "All true statements of logic and mathematics are tautologies" which is incorrect unless it means that they are true under every interpretation. If we leave it as is then every contingent and actual truth is a tautology since they are true (but not in general logically) in logic (under some interpretation). There are other issues as well.

The word 'interpretation' is not necessarily wedded to model-theoretic notions. In fact, it is more "fundamental" than 'tautology'!

I hope the page is edited appropriately soon. Nortexoid 17:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing this page before--I have to say that I have some issues as well. The claim that "all true statements of mathematics are tautologies" seems to me practically the defining belief of logicism, a foundational school that has fallen into severe disfavor (but it would be a POV assertion even if logicism were the dominant school).
On a pickier note, the page currently claims that the mathematical symbol is \Vdash. I think you want \models; the former symbol is more often used for the forcing relation. --Trovatore 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
That was changed by me but reverted. To be fair, it is used for validity in some texts (e.g. Mendelsohn and Fitting's "First-order Model Logic"), but this usage is far from standard; hence my change.Nortexoid 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Quick-and-dirty fix in place for these issues. I still think the page needs some serious work. I tend to think of a "tautology" as being a validity of the propositional calculus; statements of quantified predicate calculus can be true in every interpretation without being tautologies in my usage. --Trovatore 19:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you are among most people when tending to think that. Aside from that, the rest of the introduction is abhorrent--e.g. "useless tautology"; "all statements are informative in some context"; "a tautology...is true regardless of the truth of its parts" (which wrongly suggests non-truth-functional); etc. Nortexoid 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, before my rv, I don't believe I ever edited this page: it wasn't even on my usual watchlist, but only User:Chalst/watchlist. I rved the edit not becuase I thought there were no improvements in Nortexoid's edit, but because (i) on balance there was more harm than good in the edit, (ii) sorting out the good from the bad was N's job, and (iii) I didn't have time. Please feel free to edit the article, just don't try to impose modern preconceptions on ancient topics. Aristotle's "All As are A" is a tautology not of propositional logic, but of syllogistic. --- Charles Stewart 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse move of Stephen Schwartz (journalist) to Suleyman Ahmad

This move, now fixed, was inappropriate given the consensus at the talk page. If a robot really made this move, it is in dire need of repair. --- Charles Stewart 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand this comment. I am not running any bot that moves pages; I have not moved either of these pages or even edited either of them. I did run a bot that changed some redirects to Talk pages relating to these articles, as follows: [3] and [4]. Both of these were double-redirects; that is, before the changes, someone who tried to access Talk:Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz would have been taken to Talk:Stephen Schwartz (historian), which is itself a redirect, and therefore the only thing the user would have seen is a redirect message. My bot changed "(historian)" to "(journalist)" so that the redirect now points to the active talk page. I'm not sure why you object to this (if this is indeed what you object to). --Russ Blau (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: What is going on?

I had trouble understanding an expression you put on my talk page (because I'm not english as a first language), but by searching I think you meant something like why is this page User:Chalst/advogato constantly being edited on impulsion by people. If this is what you meant, it must be because it is listed on the broken redirects page at #54, at least this is how I found it. If you have the time, I'd like you to answer a question for me: Is it ok to make a "potentially good" edit on a page containing the word User in the title or are these pages only reserved to the user in question? I never found that in the rules and I'm relatively new here. Optimager 22:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Now I understand, thanks for the info. Optimager 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free Boolean algebra

Would you do an accuracy check on my latest article, free Boolean algebra? I self-disputed one thing that I'm not quite sure is right and don't have references; see the talk page. --Trovatore 00:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing of Dresden

My concern was to move the reference out of the Holocaust section and meld the informaion it into the "Points of view" section where the thing had already been mentioned. Yours is better, more succinct wording. :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 09:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modojo

Thanks for your message. Based on edit history, the article was speedied after 47 minutes and contained no content. --JJay 15:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. I didn't realize there were time guidelines for speedy tagging. Nevertheless, this hardly shut down editing since 22 minutes after speedy the article was recreated with an initial edit of: Modojo is a gaming website targeted towards handheld gaming. P.S. Warrior is teh suck. -P
Someone else tagged it for Afd after 6 minutes. --JJay 16:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics

I would like to rename Actor model, mathematical logic, and physics. Your input on the talk page would be appreciated, if you can still stomach this. Hewitt has a reasonable proposal, I think. Thanks.--CSTAR 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Community Methaphor

I would like you to consider voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community Metaphor. Cheers --R.Koot 11:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi Yu

The article does not allege notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hewitt: denotational semantics

If you still can take this: Hewitt is now claiming that actors are needed to explain delayed evaluation. How can he possibly believe this? Please have a look at my exchange with him in Talk:denotational semantics.--CSTAR 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

Hi Charles, thank you for coming up with the proposed wording the new image section on WP:NOT. It is much what I was thinking. Did you notice the Gallery of Socialist Realism was deleted anyway? I have left a note for on the closing admin's (User:Drini) talk page since he closed as a straight delete rather than a transwiki and delete. Dsmdgold 16:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Just a couple of things, a small brain dump if you will. (some would say the dump of a small brain, but that's another story.)
  • Dispite the fact that I changed it back to the way it was, I'm pleased to see that you were bold and made a change to a policy page, and that you took the temperature of the zeitgeist while doing so.
  • It was a mistake on my part not to follow that action up with a post on WP:PUMP or something of that nature.
  • I'm not aware that any such thing exists, but here's an idea I've had: Make a quasi-category template. Each of the images that were on this page could have a small box with "next", "previous", and a list of all the images in categories. This goes on the image page itself, with and entry link to the "first" image from the Socialist realism article.
    brenneman(t)(c) 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old Larry Text

Hello charles this prob a bit late but in oct 2004 you asked on the sense and reference talk page whether anyone had the original Larry text. I have a copy of it, dating from nov 2001 if you are interested.

Dean Bucker dbuckner -- sorry in a hyurry

[edit] revert war

This is in response to the stuff about BORED on WP:DRV, but I'm replying here since that's already pretty long. I can understand the comparison between edit warring and repeated deletion. In fact, I strongly feel that admin actions should be considered like any other edit, for purpose of etiquette. And, as a follower of the WP:1RR, I strongly oppose edit warring.

However, I don't consider it a war in this case. I think we all agree that repeatedly reverting vandalism "doesn't count" as edit warring. Well, in my opinion, removal of any blatantly undesirable content (even if it's not vandalism) does't count either. If a newbie is repeatedly inserting POV, I'm going to remove it, quite possibly more than once, and I don't consider this a violation of 1RR.

But you bring up a good point- discussion on the talk page counts for a lot. If I have to take the time to make an edit (or perform an admin function) more than once, I should probably take the time to explain my reasoning. Friday (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: About what the attribution requirement demands

That is an interesting perspective. I had not previously considered the implications of the technical change which made the history of a deleted article visible to non-admins. That might, after all, satisfy the attribution requirements of GFDL. Of course, in this case you already have the attribution history on the original deleted page so the userification of the page is not relevant. But it's a great question. Does the contribution history of a deleted page satisfy GFDL if/when parts of the content are resurrected and re-used?

I want to think about this some more and maybe ask someone on our legal team to look at GFDL in light of this recent change. It might also have implications for our policy and practice on dealing with copyright violations. (Since it could be considered a form of condoning the resurrection of deleted content, could it invalidate the defenses we've traditionally made about the promptness and effectiveness of our responses to copyvios?) I'll try to find the right place on Meta to post the questions. Thanks for bringing them up. Rossami (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Investigation of Allegations that Wikimedia Foundation has Conflicts of Interest Spark Interest in Publishing Transparent Books

Mr. Stewart,

  • The talk page did not qualify as patent nonsense, though it is policy that talk pages of deleted articles be deleted as well. I've restored the page because of your interest (and undeleting a talk page never hurts anyone).
  • While only administrators can look at the content of deleted pages, we have an index of criteria over at Wikinews:Speedy deletion guidelines.

—MESSEDROCKER (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you can request undeletion of articles at n:Wikinews:Deletion requests. Sorry I misunderstood your question there. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Have a look @ Talk:Right-wing_politics#Back_to_the_article..., I raised a question I'd be interested in your comment regarding. Thanks, Sam Spade 13:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reply

[edit] An old issue

Since we've had a nice interaction on Left-right politics, I hope it might be a good time to clear the air about an old issue that still bothers me, namely your edits to Prussian Holocaust (history), and what I took to be your support for Chammy Koala, Helpful Dave (=Chamaeleon) & User:Schlesier in this and other issues that I argued in effect constituted pushing neo-fascist talking points and an abuse of Wikipedia.

I've looked over Talk:Prussian Holocaust, and (i) I've more sympathy with the line you actually took than what I has remembered was the line you took, (ii) I didn't respect WP:AGF for which I apologise. But there are three points I want to make:

  • Though I am at ease with what the article now contains (the reason for that is mostly due to finding the letter about the Louvain destruction), and though I generally agree with the principle that "the cure for bad speech is not less speech but more speech", this is one of those cases where not adding respectability to a very ugly rhetorical strategy;
  • Based on his edits here and at de.wikipedia, User:Schlesier appears to be an active neo-fascist or fellow traveller;
  • Chammy Koala really was guilty of what I said about her;

...on which I have the nagging suspicion I don't think you agree with. I'd appreciate your views on this, if only to help me put this behind me. --- Charles Stewart 20:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I appreciate people like you who clear the air rather then allow bad blood to become worse.
OK, some info. User:Schlesier is not to my knowledge a neo-nazi, but I am pretty sure he is an extreme german nationalist. Chammy Koala is (or was) Chamaeleon's gf. I am not german, and am not partisan regarding germany and poland. I do feel that german war crimes are greatly exagerated and over focused on, while Russian (and other, including american) war crimes are largely ignored (due to victors justice / cold war politics). I am curious what you mean about Chammy Koala being guilty of, as I might be able to clear that up also.
Sam Spade 22:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


Thanks for your reply. Bad blood is too much: the whole question shook me badly; I was ascribing all kinds of motives I had little evidence for to several participants in the whole episode, and was on the verge of leaving WP, but I did put the whole sorry saga behind me. Still, I'm glad to have this exchange.
There aren't many extreme German nationalists who aren't neo-fascists or fellow travellers, but that's by-the-by. I accused Chammy Koala of being a useful idiot of neo-fascists, and pace WP:CIVIL I'd say the same again of her. She simply failed to engage what I said in the VfD discussion. While I think the way that (West-) germans came to term with their Nazi past is generally admirable and holds lessons for other countries dealing with shameful parts of their nation's history, it's also fair to say that germans are generally guilty of what Orwell called "reverse nationalism". --- Charles Stewart 03:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is reverse nationalism something like "white guilt"? If so, I can tell you from living here (I'm currently living in Germany) that germans arn't feeling very guilty. Their mainly feeling angry about economics and immigration generally, and the EU specifically. My one german friend (all my german friends are west german btw, since I live on the border of benelux) says germany should never have reunited, and he wishes they could get rid of east germany. You can imagine what he thinks of the general generosity of his nation and its socialist tendancies towards immigrants and poorer nations. Except for those who are very far left, all the germans I have met feel that taxes are too high, benefits too low, and that they are tired of paying the bills for "auslanders".

Useful idiot is clearly an inherently POV term, and prob. unhelpful. I will say that those on the left who would have been sympathetic w the soviet union 20 yrs ago are now often sympathetic w muslims in a way which makes many people uncomfortable. This sort of "support the underdog no matter who he is" attitude might have been a factor on chammy's part, if you choose to look at it that way.

On the other hand, my opinion is that Chammy was simply being intellectually honest. Germany is for many people a caricature of guilty post-imperialism, w hitler and nazi's as some sort of archetype of evil. Such views are promoted in the public school system by mouldering academics, but have little meaning to persons such as myself (and I assume chammy) who have a broad view of history. In short, people are horrid to one another w great regularity, with Nazi germany being just one of a long list of examples. Yes, the shear numbers of dead were high, but that must be placed into perspective. The industrial revolution had recently occurred, and the ability for people to relocate (voluntarily or not) had just taken a profound leap. The dynamics of european history had already set the Jews (and others, but especially the Jews) up for what happened. Nearly universally reviled, locked into unpopular "parasitic" occupations by racial laws, and concentrated in ghettos, the inevitable occurred. If you think about it in terms of statistics, the nazi's killed very few people in an astoundingly humane manner when compared to other incidents of ethnic cleansing, even those which occured in WWII. The japanese in the rape of nanking, numerous incidents in eastern europe perpetrated by the Ustaše, and of course the invading russians help provide perspective. The nazi's didn't nail women to barns by their ears, engage in head chopping contests, or encourage their guards to slit 1,360 throats apiece. They did do a great deal of awful things, but honestly... I was watching a revolutionary war video with my children recently, and we learned how american patriots on at least one occasion skinned indians in order to make boots. People are often horrid to each other, nazi's were not exceptional in that regard.

Hopefully I have helped you understand my POV rather than offending or otherwise confusing you further. Always glad to participate in amiable and rigorous dialogue, Sam Spade 15:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Walters

This article was wrongly speedied. The version deleted stated that Walters was "a prominent Melbourne barrister and civil libertarian." A simple google search (which the deleting administrator obviously failed to do) confirms this. CSD A7 is reserved for "An article about a real person or persons that does not assert their importance or significance." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your praise. I'm not sure if I would have written it if I knew in advance how much time it would cost ... -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Image galleries

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD. Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Speedy deletion patrol

I'm a non admin who is willing to participate. It's quite true that non-admins have all kinds of diasadvantages compared to admins, but Special:Undelete often tells you a lot about articles, so one catch mistakes (I've already found one, per talk page: very notable individual twice deleted, once following copyvio). --- Charles Stewart 19:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, please add yourself to the project page. I've seen you around a lot and of course assumed you were an admin. Is there any particular reason why you're not? I'm sure you could be if you went up for it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article validation

My offhand reference to switching on article validation wasn't so offhand; I read somewhere (AN, ANI?) that the devs plan to switch this on in January if they have stablised it by then. I think the Meta links are m:Article validation feature (with a link to a test install of MediaWiki) and m:Article validation possible problems. How similar the en.wikipedia implementation will be to the kind of metric described by Levien I have no idea (but you can read the code, if you like!). I am keen to see it switched on, although I'd like to understand more about it, and I really have no idea how similar or not it may be to what Levien describes (I haven't read the conference paper he references). So I think the case may already have been made; if it hasn't, or it has been unmade or I have misunderstood the nature of its making then yes, I'd be interested in thinking it through. -Splashtalk 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larry &c

You said

You kindly offered to provide a copy of this on my talk page, but I missed it until now. Yes, please, I'd like to see it.

I'll dig this up. Currently I'm on an edit war against vandalisers of the main Philosophy page. The trick of the Larry articles is that he never wrote one on "sense and reference". I created that article years ago, pulling in material of his on proper names that was actually on sense and reference. All his material should still be in the archives. But I'll dig up what I have. Dbuckner 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I like what you wrote in your semantics section. There is more that needs saying: I'm guessing that you want me to bring in current issues in semantics? --- Charles Stewart 18:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember now. Do you mean the "logical form" section. I think the semantics section of the "logic" article is about right. Pick up all the other stuff in the main article on semantics. The main article should just be a taster for links.

We need to get the "division" section right, also. Dbuckner 20:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] logic article

My thinking on your content is that when we have your material on Inference then we are in a good position to figure out what needs doing with the logic article.

Can't remember promising any. I'll think about that one. Meanwhile, we are not agreed on the idea of dividing the subject. All the older texts and many newer ones divide it in some way. Was it this particular division? Or the very idea?

Also, I've done a lot on this. Can't someone else do something. I'm very busy over the Winter Festival!

Greetings for the Feast of the Nativity, in any case

Dbuckner 21:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Algebraic logic

I note that no such article currently exists, but that in User:Chalst/tasks, you have a link that implies an article on the logicians between (approximately) Boole and Schröder, and in User:Chalst/watchlist, you have a link that implies an article on areas of contemporary mathematical logic that are heavily influenced by algebra.

Both subjects seem to deserve an article of their own, each of which would have a reasonable claim to the title - but I doubt that a single article could encompass both. So one or both presumably need a different title, with appropriate disambiguation links. Have you any preferences on the matter?

PWilkinson 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Marx

Hello, I have no problem with your change to the list regarding Marx. However, I do think that denying that Marx was born Jewish is a bit of a stretch. Without even getting into the circumstances of his father's conversion (i.e. to continue to practice law), the mother converted much later and Marx was not baptized until age 6. -- JJay 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I only disputed the inaccurate claim that Marx converted from Judaism: it is misleading to claim that a baptism in childhood in an irreligious family constitutes a conversion. --- Charles Stewart 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disputing this- I put the description of Marx up rapidly and am glad other editors are there to correct the text. That's the way the project should work. Regarding Marx, it would be interesting to know if a bris took place. -- JJay 19:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Grunge Bands AfD

Thanks. His name was above your keep vote in the window in which I was working; I must have been working too quickly. I've changed my vote accordingly. --Idont Havaname 02:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] London calling

Hello Charles again. Happy New Year. Do have a look at my article on William of Sherwood. You are right, I forgot I mentioned those points.

I have already done some background reading, so why don't I contribute a paragraph on the medieval theory of consequences, ex vero numquam sequitur falsum & all that. Then a final sentence like 'but a full theory of entailment was never worked out'. Then over to you for to talk about how the essential property of a logical formal system is soundness, a minimal condition which a sound system should satisfy is consistency, and of ideas like completeness &c.

I have rewritten a section on "rival conceptions of logic" which I will post now to my draft page.

Another section that needs to be worked on is controversies in logic. These include

1. Material implication 2. Intension vs intension 3. The petitio principii problem 4. Whether logic is the form or the law of thought 5. Whether logic is concerned with thought or language – scientia sermocinalis or scientia rationalis? 6. Real vs nominal definitions (an old problem that resurfaced as 'natural kinds'). 7. More ...

We still haven't settled the problem about 'division of the subject'. You haven't answered my question about whether it was the very principle of the thing you don't like, or whether it was my treatment (which was not very good, as it happens).

I think this could be a beautiful article.

Seasons greetings once more.

Dbuckner 16:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section on inference

I have added this up to 1910. Over to you. Dean Dbuckner 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Thank you for moving the discussion on Galleries into the WWIN subpage. I think you're right that this discussion will still take quite a while to sort out. We should probably advertise the sub-page some. Have you posted a link at the Village Pump yet? Thanks again. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peirce's law

Greetings.

I just revisited Peirce's law for the first time in a few months and noticed that you deleted an entire paragraph with the comment "delete crap". What you deleted was a valuable paragraph, a small story intended to illustrate Peirce's law, and a necessary paragraph for the next to make any sense. I've restored it, with one small fix.

Please respond on my talk page. - FunnyMan 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy Wonking

Eeek.
Sorry if that came back snappy. Too much time on IRC, where "policy wonk" is the new insult de jour to apply to me. After all "deletionist" is so last year, and it has the added frisson of it's alliterative connection.

Good health,
brenneman(t)(c) 11:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries

Thanks for the poke... sorry to say I'm still opposing. However, the reason that I hadn't gotten back to this ws that no one ever restored the Soviet Constructivist Gallery (or whatever it was) for me to play with.

I've got an idea, and now that there are a few example galleries there, I'm going to have a bash. Watch this space.

brenneman(t)(c) 12:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's really crude, probably a bad idea, most likely been done before, and doesn't actually work right now... but have a look at Image:Pompeii_Fresco_002.jpg. I've added a "flipbook". You can't actually "flip" right now, but I think you'll get the idea. Comments?
brenneman(t)(c) 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All the Wiki's a stage, and we are but players in it

Charles,
I don't want to appear to be trying to influence your vote. That's not germane to my reason for posting the diffs in the first place. I would, however, like to influence your opinion of Nadesuka, for the longer term.

The first real exchange of theirs I could find was one where Nadesuka commented on Tony's removal of his signed comments from the ArbCom workshop. Here Tony charmingly closes with ""fuck it" [...] your words were just clutter". Moving down a few sections to Nandesuka's second attempt and his third we can, indeed, hear some frustration creeping in.

Tony can be more than a "pain in the arse". Nandesuka will, eventually, learn not to be baited into providing Tony with ammo. He was, I re-iterate, attempting to have some meaningful dialog up until the very end. He'd realised his own limitations, and was seeking outside help. He was not suffering under the impression that it was impossible that he was wrong, and stated that he was willing to face it if told he was.

I can't deny that he was at times sharp, sarcastic, and even bluntly incivil. I still think that he handled it as well as any of us could have, and far far better than I would have.

Thanks for listening, brenneman(t)(c) 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

(I've just copy-pasted some of this at the request of Tony, but it was intended for you first. I've just taken more care in what I'm saying to you.)

I won't repeat my response to Aaron's rather oddly selected redactions above, because I've already done so on his talk page. Although I tried to be charitable to Aaron, there seems to be a consistent attempt to mislead. Aaron has indicated, amid a lot of intemperate and baseless accusations, that he's going to avoid having anything to do with me. That's fine by me, and I can hope that Nandesuka also will not once more attempt to stir up this nastiness. If he does, I'll just shrug inwardly and avoid it. Reponding to this is not going to improve the encyclopedia.

Thanks for your intervention; I do think it has helped that you are both fairly well acquainted with one another and on reasonably good terms. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Actually

I'd prefer that, if we can't agree on this, we simply return to what we can agree on. Have you looked over my mal-formed flipbook at all? - brenneman(t)(c) 18:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it need a fair bit of work but I was flying the idea to start. Ideally it would be parameter driven, with only the list (and perhaps a number in the series) required to make all the links. I have no idea if this is possible, but was mostly after feedback as to whether it was worth the time, even. - brenneman(t)(c) 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom Vote

Hi Chalst,

As per your opposition vote to my ArbCom candidacy due to the lack of questions, I've elaborated on my statement and explanation at the questions page. I welcome any further questions to be asked to clarify any of your doubts, and let me know on my talkpage if it's urgent. Thank you for your interest! :)

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr Carl

Good comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop. However, I don't understand the sentence "I think that Carl Hewitt should be banned from editing only autobiographical editing." Is there a typo somewhere? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slide shows and other things

I saw the request which led User:Aaron Brenneman/Gallery of Socialist Realism, and it might be useful for carrying out what I believed was the actual consensus of the AfD, which was to transwiki. However since I recreated the gallery within the article Socialist Realism, I don't feel particuarly strongly about the transwiking. I suppose I should have spread the word on the Gallery issue one AfD vote sooner.

The slide show is a neat idea, ans could have a lot of cool uses, but I don't think it can replace an image gallery. (Although it would beat moving all galleries to Commons). Sometimes you need to be able to see the images side by side. Dsmdgold 03:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As a side note I've started "keeping score" on the Gallery discusion here. It seems to me that there is a clear supermajority in favor of galleries, although there is not a clear consensus on which wording. Dsmdgold 03:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA/citations

Hi Charles, thanks for your note. I'm not familiar with the case but I'll take a look and see whether I can think of anything appropriate. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolic Logic

Hello Charles - HNY. I just saw your question about symbolic logic. In my view, it is a historical term used before mathematical logic, and used by traditional logicians to differentiate it from their subject. Lukasiewicz does not use the term at all: for him, all formalisation involves symbolism, it's just a matter of degree. Symbolic logic is traditionally that in which every expression has a symbolic & therefore non-ordinary language representation. Hope you can contribute to the article soon Dbuckner 08:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Libel threat? Oh dear. Good luck. Dbuckner 08:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal science

Thanks for creating this: it's been on my to do list for too long. It has strategic importance wrt. the articles around scientific method. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

De nada. I'm pretty sure it's a common usage, already appearing as an umbrella term in college curricula and course catalogues and such. Jon Awbrey 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Schwartz

I've unprotected Stephen Schwartz. Your assistance in making sure that the article is -- in a very hardcore way -- sourced only to legitimate mainstream sources, without speculation beyond what is 100% verifiable, will be much appreciated. --Jimbo Wales 04:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not banning intellectuals and scientists (proposed language)

Charles,

I would appreciate your comments and suggestions on the following:

Wikipedia talk:Autobiography#Not banning intellectuals and_scientists (proposed language)

Thanks, --Carl Hewitt 18:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 11 on Template:user allboxes

(copied from my talk page DES (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)):

I'd appreciate a bit more explanation on how you don't find this template disruptive. To lay out my argument explicitly:

1. WP decision making depends upon fairly constructed polls;
2. Poll-stacking operations interfere with the fairness of these polls;
3. Hence, poll-stacking operations disrupt WP decision making;
4. By extension, templates that facilitate poll-stacking are disruptive.

I'm guessing you don't agree with the above, but I'd like to know where you think the argument goes wrong. --- --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia decision making depends on discussions that attempt to achieve consensus. In rare cases such discussuons take the form of polls, but this should never be the first or preferd form. Thus your point 1 is in error.
2 Attracting more eyes to polls, incuding eyes that may have partular views, increases the bredth of the possible consensus decision, and hence is generally a good thing. Callign this "Poll stacking" is poisening the well. It is true that attractign eyese from ONLY one side of a cotraversy is generally a bad thing, but haveing people from multiple poitns of view each attracing eyes may not be. This your point 2 is in error.
3 Tempaltes that express a viewpoint on issues of wikipedi policy can be sued to attract people to polls, but this is not their only use -- they can also be sued to demonstrate the number of wpople who hold a certain view, and thus be a method on helping form a proper consensus on such an issue. A page or tempalte that expresses such a view would IMO only be disruptive if it were actually beign used disriptively, note merely if it could be so used. In short, untill you can show that this tempalte has actually been used for disruptive "poll stacking", or that it has no other possible use, your point 4 is in error.

I think the same reasoning applies to all userbox and similar templates that express a PoV on issues of Wikipedia policy, or on the propriety or otherwise of particular actions or kinds of actions on wikipedia. They might be used for disruption, yes. The letter F might be used as part of a profane term, too. But we don't prevent people from having Fs on their keyboards for that reason. I could see an argument that such userboxes shoudl not incorporate a category, that the category is more likely to be used in a disruptive way and has less legitimate value. I am not sure even of that. DES (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ping. I responded further on my talk page. DES (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typographical Number Theory

Hi Charles. I'd like to ask you for an opinion on what we should do with Typographical Number Theory. See User talk:Oleg Alexandrov#Red linked user name? for some background. User:Randall Holmes wrote there:

"I (Holmes) suspect that Typographical Number Theory should be deleted: it is a specific formal implementation of Peano arithmetic found in Hofstadter's book, and an article on it is redundant. But while I am a mathematical logician of long standing, I am a Wikipedian of quite short standing and will defer to others on this kind of question."

So, should we send it to AfD? Trim it? Leave it as it is and see what User:Evildictaitor makes of it? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 13th hour followup question

Hi Charles. I just noticed your "13th hour followup question" now, and have responded. Sorry for the delay. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Contemporary philosophers

Please vote here. — goethean ॐ 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I do apologize ...

... for helping to perpetuate that fork in the discussion at Talk:Islamofascism (term), and I certainly appreciate your efforts to help find a solution to all this. People keep warning others not to support my "agenda," I wish someone would tell me exactly what is on that agenda, as I've been looking for it for years. Seriously. the main thing that bugs me here, as I'm sure you know, is that there is an effort in popular culture to suggest/imply/finesse the pont that a political movement called Islamofascism really does exist and does have proponents who embrace it under that name, just like Fascism did, and that implication is not on the square. That may be the Muslim in me talking, on account of the whole "Look how much they have in common with Hitler" business, but it's also the poli-sci major and C-SPAN junkie having his say. Thanks for listening to both. BYT 12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Concurrency Wikiproject

Hi Charles,

I've noticed that you are a participant in Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and also have an interest in improving the quality of the Wikipedia articles on concurrency. I have put together a preliminary proposal to start a Concurrency Wikiproject, which would focus on improving the quality and organization of concurrency-related articles. I would be interested in getting your input on this proposal, especially since Rudy has raised the issue that there is probably significant overlap with Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science (there is probably also some potential overlap with your proposed Logic Wikiproject :-) — there has been some discussion about either merging the proposed project into Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, or making it a child of one of those projects. Any opinions you might have on this are most welcome - please stop by the talk page and let us know what your thoughts are. --Allan McInnes 07:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been persuaded to put my efforts into the larger Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science instead. But I'd still be happy to discuss improvements to concurrency articles with you. --Allan McInnes 23:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. We'll see how the AC case goes. VeryVerily 11:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosario

Dear Charles, for your information: i contacted the users i know (some for a few years now) are interested in this pseudo-claimant. I would never spam the page of a user i dont know just because. Before you start defending Manuel de Sousa, who is a very articulate man, please consider the policy of verifiability of wikipedia. This claims appear in the internet in three kinds of places: his pages, wikipedia and wikipedia mirrors. I dont care about monarchy in portugal, i'm not portuguese and i'm certainly no monarchist. What i do care is to see wikipedia abused by this kind of thing. Thank you for "listening" to my explanations. Cheers, muriel@pt 14:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Predicate calculus into First order logic

Hi Charles. See: Talk:First-order logic#Proposal to merge Predicate Calculus article into this one. Paul August ☎ 02:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP CS

Hi Charles! Just wanted to welcome you to WikiProject Computer science. Looking forward to collaborating with you. --Allan McInnes 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Logic

Hello Charles. I'd just like to say that I completely support the idea of creating a WikiProject Logic, and that if there is anything I can help with to speed up the process (voting?), please let me know. Once it's created, I'd very much like to be notified. Porcher 03:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paraconsistent logic and dialetheism

Hi there, fellow Wikipedian. You're right that relevance logic is a kind of paraconsistent logic. (Strictly speaking that's not exactly true, since relevance is defined in terms of theoremhood and paraconsistency in terms of the consequence relation, and thus it is possible to define a relevance logic that is not paraconsistent—see Graham Priest's article on paraconsistent logic in the Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd ed. But I'm not going to quibble over such minutiae.) But dialetheism is not a logic at all; it is a philosophical view. (There is, obviously, a big difference.) I was simply trying to edit the article to reflect this plain, uncontroversial fact. Best, Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I responded to your response on my talk page (as is my policy). BTW, I was just reading the message directly above, and I too would be very interested participating in a Logic WikiProject. Please let me know if there is a place to "sign up," or if I can otherwise be of help in any way. Cheers, Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logicpeida

Chalst,

I am interested in logic, also. I want to create my own project of abolutism philosophy, please come and contribute, as I would contribute on logic project.

Thanks,

Stevekimcomcastnet 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blockland game mods

Can we extend Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Better Mod to cover All-in-One Reloaded, Block Land Mods, and Return to Blockland, as well, which are also Blockland game mods. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, as long as you are confident they are sufficiently similar, feel free to just add them. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentzen

Hi Charles,

I wonder if you might have a look at Gentzen's consistency proof. Background: I'd thought for a while that there should be an article about this, and even put it on requested articles, and one day I noticed that there was a long passage about it sitting incongruously in the middle of Gödel's incompleteness theorems. To be honest I don't think it's very good, but it certainly didn't belong where it was and might be better than nothing, so I ripped it out of the Gödel article and created the Gentzen one, slapping an {{expert}} tag on it.

The exposition needs a lot of work of course, but I'd also like to point your attention to the penultimate paragraph, which I think is misleading. If we denote by T the theory indicated (PRA+transfinite induction; not sure how you formalize that exactly), then perhaps T doesn't prove all the theorems of PA, but that doesn't mean it isn't stronger in the relevant sense, which is consistency strength. I think the following should be true: T proves all Π01 facts that PA does, and some that it doesn't, and IΔ0 proves Con(T)→Con(PA), but does not prove Con(PA)→Con(T). Do you agree with that? I think all we need for the usual arguments to go through is that, for any Σ01 sentence σ, IΔ0 proves "σ → PA proves σ", which I think should be true. --Trovatore 06:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] limitation of size

Hi Charles, would you mind having a look at limitation of size? --Trovatore 19:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra bits in logic article

Hello Charles. We were going to do a little more work on the logic article when you had time. Hope your legal problem was sorted out. Best wishes Dbuckner 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That's a tough piece of condensed writing.

I'm sure you are up to it. After all, we have already covered the period 500 BC to the 19C (joke). Best Dbuckner 09:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way my beloved 'Term Logic' has now been entirely destroyed by an edit war. Mel Itis has written a good piece on the Syllogism, but we need to think how the articles lying under 'Logic' fit together. It's interesting that many problems in WP seem to arise from small fault lines turning into huge earthquakes. Pleased to hear about libel news. Dbuckner 09:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need your advice or help.

Hi I am Northmeister,

I am having trouble on the 'syllogism' page. Here a user Twrigley known also as Ted had his entire work of 'day's' reverted without any prior discussion. I got involved because the editor who reverted in this manner did so after the before said editor Ted mediated a case between that editor and myself. That editor refused mediationa and treated Ted harshly for trying to help out. Ted issued a verdict which the said editor in question then responded by reverting the 'syllogism' work of Ted. This caused further disruption at the page. I contested the reversion as not proper for civility among other things, but the editor in question continued to revert anyway. This caused Ted, a cordial guy who needed to do a little work on the article in question, to state he was leaving wikipedia. This type of stuff needs to stop. The editor in question may be known by you, I am not sure, as she has administrator priveledges and has edited for somewhile...namely SlimVirgin. I ask you take a look at the page and offer any advice to me or to the editors there. What can be done? I have been constantly harassed by this person among others associated and labeled by them over other disputes, which is the reason for the passion in our exchanges. I am new and don't have full grasp on wiki policies yet and have had to learn the hard way about them. It is unfortunate for wikipedia that good editors leave due to harassment by others and nothing is ever done about it. This harassment leads to inappropriate responses by new comers like myself because we feel attacked by their treatment. You may see the source of this treatment and past actions by following the links.

Thank you for at least reading my questions and concerns. I do hope something can be done to right the wrong done to Ted at least. Thanks again.

Northmeister

Hello (if I may butt in). This is regrettable & if I could apologise on behalf of the others I would. But at the end of day it depends on the relative merits of the work that was replaced, and the replacing work. My judgment as an expert (if I may) is that Mel's work was of better quality than the work it replaced. That, at the end of the day, is all that is importany. Apologies for the way it was done. These things shouldn't happen, but they do. Dbuckner 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your input Dbuckner. I agree that Mel did a fine job. But let us begin at the beginning of all this by setting the record straight. Let us right the wrong done to Ted by SlimVirgin, then proceed from there. I have offered a proposal for doing this. Integrating Mel's work into Ted's work, and allowing Ted and Mel to work together with the rest of the community to achieve wonderful results. Mel has offered excellent work on the reverted edition. He had no prior knowledge from all I gather, of the previous version worked on by Ted and other editors over a period of days and weeks. Starting from the there and working forward we can achieve a community purpose and progress through engagement. Thanks. --Northmeister 15:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syllogism

Well if you could leave a short message in support of my proposal to keep Mel's rewrite, which is of high quality, this would be appreciated. Dbuckner 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Peer Review bot

Dear Charles,

I've been motivated by Wikipedia_talk:Scientific_peer_review to

1. conduct a haphazard review of OR archives.

2. suggested the idea of a bot that might conduct psuedo verification of sources, and whether an articles predicates have all been sufficiently cited.

I noticed you have some things to say on OR. I'd like to draw your attention to my apparently novel and unpopular suggestion at, Wikipedia_talk:Scientific_peer_review/SPR_methodology#Argument_for.2C_and_speculations_about_a_SPRbot

I'd be interested to read any thoughts you might have.

Sholto Maud 04:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotelian logic

Hi there! There's been some fuss over the Aristotelian logic page, and some of the text you wrote for it a while back. I tried to fix it in line with some worries expressed at Talk:Philosophy. But I don't know if I got your intentions down correctly, so I thought you might like to take a look and see whether or not it's any good.

Cheers!

PS, I noticed you are interested in inferential role semantics. I was wondering, could you explain what that is? I've seen it come up in the literature, but find it more difficult to get a precise idea of what it means. Lucidish 16:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject: Logic

I think that a logic wikiproject is something that definitely needs to get off the ground. I just want to say that I would like to get involved on the ground floor - is there anything I can to do to help with this effort? MrCheshire 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image galleries

Hi there. I've arrived late at the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/galleries, and I've aded a comment. Although my comment was more about admin stuff, I agree wholeheartedly that image galleries have the potential to be very encyclopedic. Another argument would be that a properly presented sequence of pictures, with appropriate captions, can act like a narrative thread. I've also raised a bug-bear about Commons, in that I see many image galleries delete with "moved to Commons", but no link to the Commons area the galleries (which are essentially collections of image links) were moved to. For example, here and here. Carcharoth 11:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nomultilicense

apparently some nitwit went and deleted nomultilicense without consulting the dozens of people using it. you've got a redlink on your homepage. toodles. ... aa:talk 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isabelle

Hi Charles -- just to let you know that the link to Isabelle on your page User:Chalst/watchlist, which used to redirect to the cancelled particle accelerator project ISABELLE, no points to a disambiguation page -- I assume what you want it to point to is the Isabelle_theorem_prover. Joriki 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilbert's Hotel - source?

I do not know the origin of concept, but may be references at Wolfram's Mathworld will be helpful?
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HilbertHotel.html
CiaPan 16:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
(I've put the same link at Talk:Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel#Source.)

[edit] Logic Project proposal

Just curious whether you want the project listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory project list or not. Please respond to my talk page, as I'll probably see your response there first. Thank you in advance. Badbilltucker 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chalst/Global Resource Bank

Just to let you know that this page has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Chalst/Global Resource Bank. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 09:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAL vs. PVS

Hello, I see you are interested in formal verification, so I thought I could see if you can help me... I'm doing some research on SAL, and I just can't figure out the difference between SAL and PVS. It seems like the same group of people stands behind this two projects and that both do the same thing. Do you know more about this? --Dijxtra 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] informal vs formal fallacies

I was wondering if you could help me out on a matter of logic, is there a difference between a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy? It relates the the article on Begging the question which appears to contradict itself Talk:Begging_the_question#This_article_appears_to_contrdict_itself_tag. Thanks, Grumpyyoungman01 05:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/User_talk%7EChalst_00d6.html"