| Revision as of 21:47, 21 January 2008 editHans Adler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Talking down: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:54, 22 January 2008 edit undoCBM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,390 edits →Talking down: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| Hello Gregbard, I assumed you were watching my talk page, so I replied there. I am not sure if you have seen it. --] (]) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | Hello Gregbard, I assumed you were watching my talk page, so I replied there. I am not sure if you have seen it. --] (]) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks for the long reply. I am very happy with what you wrote: You understood what I wrote exactly in the way I meant it, you replied in the same way, and you made a couple of valid points that I was not aware of. I think we all need such exchanges to grow our personalities. I am sorry I felt offended initially (and needlessly) and offended you in return. If you want specific replies to single points, just tell me and I will put my answers next to your questions over there. --] (]) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | :Thanks for the long reply. I am very happy with what you wrote: You understood what I wrote exactly in the way I meant it, you replied in the same way, and you made a couple of valid points that I was not aware of. I think we all need such exchanges to grow our personalities. I am sorry I felt offended initially (and needlessly) and offended you in return. If you want specific replies to single points, just tell me and I will put my answers next to your questions over there. --] (]) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| I would like to ask you to avoid sweeping generalizations about members of the math wikiproject, such as "Now that the WP:MATH people look like they will not be able to kill the metalogic category, the math people are proposing to depopulate it, and remove it out from under the category:mathematical logic." To my knowledge, I have been uninvolved in the discussion about that category. I have, however, edited ] to clarify it for mathematicians and add another reference. Generalizations about the intentions of the entire wikiproject only serve to poison discussion and make it more difficult for you to convince others about your points. — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:54, 22 January 2008
- Current time: Saturday, January 11, 2025, 20:47 (UTC)
 Archives | ||||
|
||||
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
AWB error?
Please look at and fix. Also check your other edits to make sure this didn't happen elsewhere. -- Jeandré, 2007-10-20t20:06z
Attack
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on this page, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because the article is a page created primarily to disparage its subject or a biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to. (CSD G10).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting the article, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate the article itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Category:Metalogic
Would you please put a description of the category. I doubt very much that most of the articles you've added to it belong there, but if you would explain what you mean by it, I might see that I'm wrong.
In any case, if you don't put text into the category today, it goes to CfD. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I may have forthcoming elaborations on the category and the article so I hope this qualifies with the relatively famous Wikipedian and will stave off his ultimatum. Contributing under duress makes me sad. On a brighter note...
- The Metalogic category is a perfectly WONDERFUL category. You are being SILLY SILLY SILLY trying to kill it off this morning on its birthday. Hopefully it will be sufficiently obvious to others and you will be the only sour-puss about it.
- Here is some analysis: The paltry page on metalogic, compared to the ample page on metamathematics sure does support my claim of a math-centric wikipedia. I think you view this as some big threat from the mathematical logic separatist point of view. If math isn't subordinate to logic as has been claimed, then surely this guy will put it "under" metalogic in some regard. So it will be no surprise to see you crying about model theory and proof theory. Get over it. Misplaced Pages readers will be well informed by this proper connection to metalogic. It is not an either/or territory issue. Keep the proper connections. The description I provided is supported by a reliable source. I would like to see some statement expressly denying it before we do anything rash. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Metalogic itself, is a neologism. I supose that book is a reliable source.... Nonetheless, I've proposed merging the article to metamathematics and the category to Category:Logic, although Category:Mathematical logic may be more appropriate. You may object if you think the mergers are inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure its a neologism... if you are one hundred years old. See Carnap and Tarksi. My goodness Arthur. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Greg, I've rolled back your edit to the recent CfD on... metalogic or whatever it was, I don't care. The reason is that your comments about Arthur Rubin were unacceptable.
If you can rephrase those comments to be more polite, by all means do so. DS (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Talking down
Hello Gregbard, I assumed you were watching my talk page, so I replied there. I am not sure if you have seen it. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the long reply. I am very happy with what you wrote: You understood what I wrote exactly in the way I meant it, you replied in the same way, and you made a couple of valid points that I was not aware of. I think we all need such exchanges to grow our personalities. I am sorry I felt offended initially (and needlessly) and offended you in return. If you want specific replies to single points, just tell me and I will put my answers next to your questions over there. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to avoid sweeping generalizations about members of the math wikiproject, such as "Now that the WP:MATH people look like they will not be able to kill the metalogic category, the math people are proposing to depopulate it, and remove it out from under the category:mathematical logic." To my knowledge, I have been uninvolved in the discussion about that category. I have, however, edited metalogic to clarify it for mathematicians and add another reference. Generalizations about the intentions of the entire wikiproject only serve to poison discussion and make it more difficult for you to convince others about your points. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)