User talk:Gregbard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
| Archive 3 |
Contents |
[edit] AWB error?
Please look at [1] and fix. Also check your other edits to make sure this didn't happen elsewhere. -- Jeandré, 2007-10-20t20:06z
[edit] AfD nomination of Garbage heap of history
An article that you have been involved in editing, Garbage heap of history, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This page is satirical, not factual, as evidenced by the caption to the picture of the garbage heap. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?
[edit] Proposed deletion of Telishment
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Telishment, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? J.delanoygabsadds 03:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Logical consequence
Logical consequence can be defined either syntactically or semantically. I provided two references where it is defined semantically. It is simply incorrect to claim that syntactic consequence is a synonym of logical consequence, as if this is a universally agreed fact, when in reality logical consequence is a matter of ongoing discussion, with several different possibilities for definition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. If that's the case, then there should be a section that explicates the syntactic/semantic issues. The article is in category syntax, but not semantics. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- How does the categorization of the article affect anything? I agree the article should cover more - it's essentially a stub. But in expanding it you need to take more care to look into the broader aspects of previous research. In this case, there are a lot of philosophy papers on logical consequence that can be located with google searches. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If an article is in a category, usually it should justify that in the article somehow.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- That, or the category may be incorrect. In this case, you added the category yourself [2] when you added the claim that logical consequence is synonymous with syntactic consequence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. So do you think it is correct or incorrect? Shall we add cat:semantics, or remove cat:syntax?
- I don't think the syntax category is very apt, but I don't know that there is a good existing category. What would be good is a subcategory of Category:Logic, something like Category:Fundamental concepts in logic. In general, I think Category:Logic would benefit from the creation of a ew subcategories.
- By the way, I was just looking through the Stanford Encyclopdia article on logical consequence, which I think has pointers to several interesting issues the article can cover. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. So do you think it is correct or incorrect? Shall we add cat:semantics, or remove cat:syntax?
- That, or the category may be incorrect. In this case, you added the category yourself [2] when you added the claim that logical consequence is synonymous with syntactic consequence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If an article is in a category, usually it should justify that in the article somehow.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- How does the categorization of the article affect anything? I agree the article should cover more - it's essentially a stub. But in expanding it you need to take more care to look into the broader aspects of previous research. In this case, there are a lot of philosophy papers on logical consequence that can be located with google searches. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. If that's the case, then there should be a section that explicates the syntactic/semantic issues. The article is in category syntax, but not semantics. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR warning...
I can't come up with a non-templated warning which meets with WP:NPA, so consider this:
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics
I have not read all of the discussion in More help needed with logic articles, it would be a lot for one internet session. But i've read completely some of the comments, and captured some phrases. Greg, do you ever admit to your mistakes? If you do so, do it publicly, please, so that we could know that it makes sense to continue the dialogue. Honestly, with the lack of meaningful responses from you, i was sometimes inclined to thinking that i was talking to a highly intelligent troll or an emotionally troubled person (this is not a personal attack, this is the impression most of your comments left on me). You mentioned there at some point that you were willing to discuss articles at length rather than to engage in disputes. "Discussing at length" is exactly what is not asked from you at this point (you already have built a certain reputation). Usually you are asked one simple question at a time, to give a verifiable reference, for example. And you are expected to do just that, not to write paragraphs of excuses and complains, and not to give promises you rarely fulfill. --Cokaban (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
