| Revision as of 12:56, 19 May 2013 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits →Topic ban: Options← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:05, 19 May 2013 edit undoIranitGreenberg (talk | contribs)757 edits →Topic banNext edit → | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
| Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same than Arab-Israeli conflict? For example, I think is neutral and I should be able to do it. I won't make controversial editions anymore--] (]) 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same than Arab-Israeli conflict? For example, I think is neutral and I should be able to do it. I won't make controversial editions anymore--] (]) 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :As the admin who imposed the ban I have the option of lifting or modifying it, but I don't see the case for doing that right now. You have the option of one immediate appeal at ]. Given the fact that nobody spoke in your defence at AN3 your chances don't appear great. It might be smart for you to wait a month or two if you want to use your AE appeal. If you can contribute in other areas, any evidence that you are able to add neutral content to articles would be in your favor. ] (]) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | :As the admin who imposed the ban I have the option of lifting or modifying it, but I don't see the case for doing that right now. You have the option of one immediate appeal at ]. Given the fact that nobody spoke in your defence at AN3 your chances don't appear great. It might be smart for you to wait a month or two if you want to use your AE appeal. If you can contribute in other areas, any evidence that you are able to add neutral content to articles would be in your favor. ] (]) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| I made an --] (]) 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:05, 19 May 2013
|
3RR and ANI
Frankly, I'm not sure that any action is needed, and I added no commentary because I didn't have any strong opinions. I copied it there because I wanted others with more familiarity to be able to give input. My statement about allegations is purely a reference to some of the diffs and the text that Kodosbs made; I did no investigation than looking at the diffs. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Neil Thompson article
Ed,
I have posted a number of times on the talk section.
You give me the impression taht you believe seem to think that anyone can delete a contribution and not have to justify it.
If You think my contibutions are wrong you should condescend to a rational and substantial justification for it.
Otherwise when a self selected cabal thinks its not OK their wishes go otherwise its edit warring.
If you're intellectually serious about my contribituion respond adequately to the following
Godel's Theorems are not the pure stuff of mathematicians and it would not be surprising that a critique would be found in a philosophy journal. I wouldn't think its critical that you couldn't find in the MIT library.Its a new journal. Its paywalled but you can find it (unpaywalled) at http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/2/29/2012/2012022981760545.pdf . The first step is to try and read before taking down things without any acquaintance with them A year or more ago a couple of editors tried to include something similar and it was suggested that it was too early to do so. Apart from Russell and Wittgenstein who were unhappy with the Theorems and who didn't seem to be be able to put a finger on what was wrong this is the first real challenge to the Theorems. Whilst the Theorems mights sound OK their counterpart Lob's Theorem is certainly hard to accept. As Boolos says it offerss a way of proving that Santa Claus exists. I'm not trying to give an authoritative account of what Thompson says but the paper is very short and not hard for anyone competent in logic to understand. Its certainly easier than Godel's! A rough outline: In this context, a proof is a sequence of sentences using the standard rules of inferences and resulting in the conclusion which is also a sentence. Godel introduces the idea of arithematisation which translates a symbolic system into a system of numbers which serve an indexical function. His arithmetisation is intended to be isomorphic to the original system. He then introduces an arithmetic idea of proof which allows that any godel number of any formula is capable of proof including a single bracket. This is most odd and almost certainly wrong but doesn't matter that much. Boolos' text talks about sentences being proved. Boolos' text does not draw a distinction between open sentences which contain a free variable and closed sentences where all the variables are bound. This doesn't seem surprising to mathematicians who tend to be focussed on formulas rather than sentences but in normal English its like using a sentence contain a pronoun where the person who is talked about is never identified. Quine, America's greatest logician point out that open sentences are true of things but not true or false in themselves. Sentences, properly so called must be true or false and open sentences are neither. If you look at Godel's informal proof it quickly emerges that the sentence he talks about is an open sentence. As far as his formal proof is concerned arithmetic proof because it is intended to be isomorphic to ordinary proof can only be concerned with the proof of the godel numbers of closed sentences. His famous sentence starts with 'x is arithmetically unprovable' ; that formula has its own godel number; that godel number (which is the godel number of an open sentence) is then used to to create a new 'sentence' saying the godel number of the original open sentence is arithmetically unprovable. But its not a valid sentence if both proof (including arithmetic proof) is restricted to closed sentences. In theory, we could stick to Godel's idea of proof or something similar and allow open sentences into proof. But there's no good reason I can see for doing so. If Thompson is right a lot of people will find it shocking but is that so important? I am certainly sure there is nothing crazy about what he is saying and that a lot of logicians think that there is a problem here. Lets ask all the snipping editors to get together and show (within say 7 days: Thompson's thesis rests on some untenable assumption or mode of reasoning or say Godel's approach to proof of open sentences is right. This shouldn't be too hard given their convictions about these things.
Best wishes Fernandodelucia (talk)Fernando —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) As per WP:BRD, the onus lies on the person who wants to add new information to open a discussion (perhaps lasting 7 days, maybe not). The discussion needs to link to reliable, non-primary sources and be policy-based along with recommended wording. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ani notice
Ani notice ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Gold standard
Would you mind having a look at Gold standard? It may need another round of semi-protection as it appears the IP is at it again. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- This was handled on May 15 by Mr. Stradivarius. See Talk:Gold standard#Likely same user who was blocked before. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Heads up.
Hello. I mentioned your name at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_harrassment_by_User:Unscintillating. This is just a courtesy heads-up; I am not complaining about you there. Reyk YO! 04:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
editing restrictions
Removed this note; the purpose of the log is provide a place for editors to find if an editor has a current restriction and making the page longer just makes the more difficult. NE Ent 20:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- But the page has a section for expired sanctions, and you're removing old ones from current but not moving them to expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- The authority for WP:BLPSE is an Arbcom case, and it is normal to log the results of any *appeals* of arbitration enforcement actions in the relevant arb case log. The effect of NE Ent's position is that appeals won't be logged anywhere. If WP:RESTRICT is going to be the place where the BLPSE notes end up then the restriction log is more helpful if it links to the relevant discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I've restored both of the "historical" notes in the current sanctions section. Keeping track of these things is useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- The authority for WP:BLPSE is an Arbcom case, and it is normal to log the results of any *appeals* of arbitration enforcement actions in the relevant arb case log. The effect of NE Ent's position is that appeals won't be logged anywhere. If WP:RESTRICT is going to be the place where the BLPSE notes end up then the restriction log is more helpful if it links to the relevant discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban
Can I appeal the ban if I promise not to make controversial editions unless my other colleagues (all of them) approve it? Please I want to make positive contributions (add neutral information, undo vandalism, etc). Just tell me what editions are problematic and I'll revert them. For example, all my contributions in this article were deleted and I'll never restore them. I swear.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same than Arab-Israeli conflict? For example, I think this edit is neutral and I should be able to do it. I won't make controversial editions anymore--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
- As the admin who imposed the ban I have the option of lifting or modifying it, but I don't see the case for doing that right now. You have the option of one immediate appeal at WP:AE. Given the fact that nobody spoke in your defence at AN3 your chances don't appear great. It might be smart for you to wait a month or two if you want to use your AE appeal. If you can contribute in other areas, any evidence that you are able to add neutral content to articles would be in your favor. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I made an appeal--IranitGreenberg (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)