User talk:Pgr94

I have no idea why I am being blocked and do not know how to put forward my side, can someone help. The links I have added to wikipedia are for genuine Cochrane reviews which are of the highest qual;ity interms of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.251.69 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought about registering for an account on Wikipedia? Your contributions seem generally positive and considered, and I think you'd make a good addition to the community. Ryan McDaniel 03:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, good stuff on the Plantar! --Snori 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Somebody had got the grid reference wrong; I've fixed it now. — Wereon 14:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

<<unblock|Have done nothing wrong to my knowledge, can you please justify the need to block me. Note: my IP is 217.117.47.110 but when I edit it incorrectly says "Your IP address is 62.197.126.10.">>

You appear to be loading a page intended for someone else. Are you using Google's web accelerator, or any similar service? If so, you may be loading pages cached by other editors, so it's probably best to disable the service on some or all Wikipedia pages. Likewise, you should try to clear your browser's cache (shift or control plus reload, in most browsers). Barring that, I'd suggest you try and edit the sandbox, and see what happens. Hope that helps! Luna Santin 08:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No web accelerator or other similar tools. No proxy - unless my ISP is doing something funny. My IP address hasn't changed in over a month. Cache cleared. Sandbox comes up as blocked. Pgr94 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your ISP is doing transparent proxying for you. I've now unblocked 62.197.126.10. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Netsnipe. Pgr94 08:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Pgr94! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --  Netsnipe  ►  11:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know something, I am sick to the back teeth with people accusing me of shit like this.

Please take a second to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you can't be bothered, in short: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for over two and a half years and it is shit like that that makes me think I've been wasting my time. AlistairMcMillan 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you see it that way. There's nothing wrong with having an interest as you have shown (although it is better to be open about it). There is no reason to interpret it as an attack. We all have biases about one thing or another. I simply brought attention to yours and my claims are verifiable. Pgr94 09:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What? I AM NOT REPRESENTING ANYONE. AlistairMcMillan 18:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you aren't aware that we have rules against canvassing for votes. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. AlistairMcMillan 03:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You might also like to read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority. Look for the part that starts "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works..." AlistairMcMillan 03:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This category deletion discussion is not getting much input - you and I are the only ones debating it. A healthy debate is in WP's interest. So I thought it would be good to get some additional opinion on it. I was very careful not to attract any point of view (neutral). The places I solicited opinion were the discussion pages of the affected articles (limited posting, bipartisan). Please feel free to explain how that contravenes the guidelines you are citing? Pgr94 08:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Would you care to reveal your employer and your (paid) interests? I am very suspicious you work for Sony or Apple and are being paid to do contribute here."

I am currently working at the Western Infirmary in Glasgow Scotland. http://amcmillan.livejournal.com/109603.html

Is that enough, or would you like to continue making personal attacks? AlistairMcMillan 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just asking you to be whether you'd be prepared to declare that you have no commercial interests. No attacks there. Lighten up. Pgr94 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I, Alistair McMillan, have no commercial interests. Satisfied.

"Comment on content, not on the contributor." I'd expect someone who claims to have a PhD, who claims to be an academic, who claims to be a scientist, to be able to understand those seven simple words. AlistairMcMillan 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to your question, the reason is that many people post articles like that and leave them like that. I can't tell that you are one of the minority of users that realizes that such articles are insufficient, and I can't know what your intentions are with regard to improving any given article. It's hard work patrolling new pages, but it's even more difficult to patrol day old or week old pages. In any event, since you already know that such articles need improvement, you should not take offence at the cleanup tag. I am however sorry to have triggered an edit conflict or have otherwise put you off editing. I hope you understand. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, cleanup tags can be removed by the article's creator, so I leave it to your judgment. As for waiting a week, it is much harder to do that. There are many utilities that assist in reviewing new pages, but none (to my knowledge) that will take you through articles of a certain age, so it would have to be done manually. Please consider developing articles in notepad or /sandbox so as not to divert attention of new page patrollers from article that really need tagging. Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

- Olive Oil -_ŢάĽɮ - 14:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Pgr94, following our collaboration to tag Kent-related articles, we have ear marked 931 articles as being Kent related, however, as of the 26th March, 137 articles are still to be assessed.

• Could you please look at any, some or even one of the 137 unassessed articles and change the {{WP:Kent|class=}} template, on the talk page, to a "class=Stub/Start or B category".
• Please try to grade according to the guidelines to enable us to prioritise future work.

Kent articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA			1			1
	A			1			1
	GA			1			1
	B		3	4	6		13
	Start	1	12	49	137	2	201
	Stub		5	17	552	3	577
	Assessed	1	20	73	695	5	794
	Unassessed	0	2	5	130	0	137
	Total	1	22	78	825	5	931

- Olive Oil -_ŢάĽɮ - 01:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks for your query and yes problems with those other articles (more later)

re Onychomycosis, I thought the section inappropriate in several respects. The link was used twice and my suspeicion was that this was spamming for a commercial product (even if unintentionally so). Lots of products and research is undertaken on this topic, but unless one can cite from 3rd parties, then information should not be included. WP:Notable states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and no sources were given other than from the company itself - and I rather doubt that this product has had other "significant coverage in reliable sources". This may also apply to some of the other articles you mentioned, although having looked just at CHIPP to see what it was about, large oncology trials do tend to get reported on in the medical press, so there might be "significant coverage" to WP:Cite and WP:Verify from - but the article clearly needs work, and as a starter I have tagged it as lacking sources. Lastly the section was of undue length, and for a currently unavailable product, its use for the condition is surely trivial as under WP:Undue weight.

If you already have a list of more "under research" drug articles, can you post the list to the wikiproject WP:PHARM for consideration over the WP:Notable issue :-) David Ruben ^Talk 10:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you it probably was commercially motivated to start with, but that doesn't justify deleting it. A quick glance at the US register of clinical trials shows that it is not pure invention . If a drug is used on humans, even in clinical trials, then I would argue it is notable. I don't know how you envisage Wikipedia, but I think it is blatantly wrong to use notability guidelines to delete information about drugs in final stages of testing while keeping trivia like plot summaries of Dr. Who episodes and personalities in Coronation Street. Incidentally I have nothing to do with the companies or products involved and I didn't add the information in the first place. I just don't like to see valuable information being deleted. You should also be aware that the number of links to a website does not affect its ranking. See Wikipedia:Nofollow. Pgr94 12:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought the subject up here to get more input . Pgr94 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pgr94, I had added some links to the Dermatology photo library Dermnet.com (a website with thousands of free images of skin disease which serves no commercial purpose) and they were deleted. I contacted the person who deleted them (hu12) a few days ago, but I haven't received a response. People who have written articles here in the past have contacted me and asked to use images and information from my books "Clinical Dermatology," and "Skin Disease" which I have always approved. I would also like to become a contributor to Wikipedia. Could I please ask for your help/advice?

I will also list some information for your review:

http://books.google.com/books?id=uigMAAAACAAJ&dq

http://books.google.com/books?id=CCA2AAAACAAJ

Hello Thomas - yes I reverted the deletion of your contribution on Plantar wart. I wouldn't take the deletion personally, there is unfortunately a lot of linkspam on Wikipedia and as a result, some things get shot down inadvertently. There are a number of rules/guidelines that guide contributions. You don't need to know them to contribute but it's good to become more familiar with them over time. If you follow Wikipedia's spirit of openness and impartiality you won't go too far wrong. Best. Pgr94 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page regarding the external link I added to Thanet, Ramsgate, etc. Could you please explain how the link violates WP:EL. I do not believe it classifies as spam, it is a directory of the social fabric of the town that was compiled largely by Thanet District Council. There are no commercial links on the page. Please explain. Thanks. Pgr94 09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, may I recommend you add a new subheading and the relevant article when you use spam templates. Pgr94 09:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. To answer your question, there are commercial links at the bottom of each page on that site (Google AdSense), but my main objection is that this site is just a nested directory of more external links, which violates both WP:NOT a directory and our Wikipedia:External links guideline which states that Wikipedia articles should not be used as a directory of links. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the adsense links, I presume that's the free-wiki service provider - it's certainly nothing to do with me. My understanding is that the WP:EL policy is for content on wikipedia not for other sites. I'd be interested to see which part of WP:EL applies to link targets. Pgr94 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this information was in List of clubs and societies in Thanet until about a week ago. It was removed because of WP:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. It is not available elsewhere. To avoid it being lost I placed it on editthis_dot_info. Pgr94 18:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It should not be linked to for the same reason the article was deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can't cite the relevant policy, I will revert. This isn't about your POV. Regards, Pgr94 09:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Pgr94 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-insert this spam link or you may find the domain added to the Wikimedia blacklist. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for indeed clearing up my most sloppy removal of the spam on Onychomycosis. Reviewing now makes even less sense to me, and I can only presume I had reset the wrong edit comparison (there have been quite a few edits recently that I was looking at) - still no excuse, so thanks for your better "eye on the ball" :-) David Ruben ^Talk 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it happens to us all. With enough eyeballs on the article, I'm sure it'll go from strength to strength. All the best. Pgr94 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Because, at least at the time, it appeared to be based on Strong inference plus, which, near as I could tell reading the article then, was based solely on one person's essay, which would clearly qualify as WP:OR. The ref you added helps, but note that it does NOT claim to be 'peer reviewed' research, or anything like that--it was published as an opinion piece, which I would still maintain is WP:OR, or worse. I've had 'letters to the editor' published in my local paper, but I would certainly hope no one would use my text as a reference for an encyclopedia article. Ravenna1961 03:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that artificial intelligence begins in antiquity. The term wasn't coined until 1956. Certainly there were precursors in myth and fiction, but these were usually either robots or artificial humans, not quite the same thing. I think an appropriate analogy here would be "space travel". Although the idea of "space travel" existed for centuries (and was worked out to high level of detail by the mid fifties), space travel begins in 1957, with sputnik, or at least by 1961, with Yuri Gagarin. Similarly, artificial intelligence research has a very definite "birthday". (Read the paragraph on the Dartmouth conference, especially the last line.) Before that date, the closest thing is cybernetics or automata theory (the subject of Claude Shannon and John McCarthy's collaboration before 1956). These are related to AI, but aren't AI: the goal of these fields aren't really the same. My point is this: before 1956, anything you can cite is either (1) merely closely related, or (2) merely speculation.

Also, the new opening line doesn't read well to me; it feels like a digression at the very top of the article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I have replied on the article's talk page. Pgr94 (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was cranky. You were right, I was wrong. ---- CharlesGillingham 09:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's good to see the AI articles coming along nicely largely due to your efforts. Pgr94 11:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I support your interpretation of WP:VER. With regards to user Sai Emrys edit.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Sai Emrys' claim is funny, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.Pgr94 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for creating the Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence article. I noticed it contained references, but you forgot to add the {{reflist}} tag to it - without it, the article will not produce any reference listings. I have done this for you. Just something to keep in mind when you create new articles in the future. --Shootthedevgru (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Will keep a lookout for that in future. Pgr94 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page.--Miyokan (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&diff=194922079&oldid=194638325 - You so rock, thank you for putting in the effort and getting IBM's permission to use the image^YAY!--Sparkygravity (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'd also like to get hold of an image like this which for me captures the essence of AI. What do you think? Pgr94 (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You know I actually wouldn't. I think it implies that AI existence is something similar to human ability and perspective, which is just not true. If we create strong AI it will have a strong possibility not to be very human at all, regarding the way that it "thinks". So I believe such a image would suggest to the reader something understandable, but fundamentally flawed.--Sparkygravity (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
I am making a list of ai interested people so if somebody want to go deeper into the subject to have a start.
Do you agree to be part of this list ? Raffethefirst (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm very flattered. However, I think you've overstated my contributions on wikipedia; CharlesGillingham very much deserves the description. Pgr94 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

ok then. I will try to state that. but I am not very good at words... but finally I will find them :). Raffethefirst (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why someone might view a website with the address http://intelligencetesting.blogspot.com as spam, but Kevin McGrew is a leader in the field of cognitive testing. He has published hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles and several books, and is the co-creator of one of the leading tests in the field (Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery). The website contains links to scholarly publications, up-to-date lists of publications organized by topic, and input from many writers in addition to McGrew. He is not trying to sell anything, not even his own material. Many psychologists, myself included, find the website invaluable. I have restored that external link. If you wish to discuss further, feel free to message me. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but I find it odd that there isn't a single peer-reviewed article referenced in the article. If he is an expert on intelligence cite his work, not his blog. Regards. Pgr94 (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Go to the website. Every week or two he posts a link to "Recent literature of interest." Follow the link and you'll get a list of dozens, sometimes hundreds of peer-reviewed journal publications. Also browse the archives. Very often there is a link to pdf files of journal articles. I'm as much an advocate of peer-reviewed journals as anyone. I have a Ph.D. in clinical psychology. This website very frequently links to scholarly publications that it discusses. If you want a list of McGrew's publications I can probably compile one for you.

And once again, Wikipedia does not limit external links to peer reviewed publications. If that were the case there wouldn't be very much in the external links lists. This one is immensely more scholarly than most external links in Wikipedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I found at least one commercial link on this blog and he wants to sell advertising. If he is as influential as you allege, cite his work, not his blog. Pgr94 (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you and I will continue to disagree on this. I can cite his works easily. But I also object to removing an invaluable website for scholars in the field of intelligence and cognitive testing. It does a superb job of gatherering, integrating, and organizing scholarly publications, more so than any other website I have ever seen. As far as ads go, some external links have a minmal number of ads if their other material is of good quality. I don't want to edit war on this, but I am an expert in the field, and I don't think you will find a Wikipedia policy that forbids listing external links that are not peer-reviewed. If you do, please give me a link to it.

So I respectfully disagree. I am happy to raise the issue on Talk:Intelligence for other opinions if you wish, and if necessary post a WP:RFC. But this link is more scholarly than 90% of the links I see in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>RFC placed at Talk:Intelligence. WLU (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TimVickers has provided a comment on intelligence, but I'd say we should wait a bit longer before attempting to find a resolution. Would you agree? WLU (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

LS, In case the isle of Thanet should no longer be on your watchlist; I struck upon this: . Furthermore, there might even be a connection with... Homer! As Iman Wilkens in his book Where Troy Once Stood also mentions the isle of Thanet as the fourth of the holy places of the domain of 'Apollo of the Silver Bow', judging by the prayer of the high-priest Chryses, in which he mentions four sites in a downstream order: 'Hear me, thou of the Silver Bow, who dost stand over Chryse and holy Cilla, and dost rule mightily over Tenedos'. (Iliad (I,451)). Silver Bow, according to Wilkens, is located at the bow in Thames River in London's East End, on which silvertown is situated (where in roman times a temple stood (templum candidi Apollinis). Chryse was located around Grays, Crayford and river Cray. Cilla now would be the region of Chilham near Canterbury and finally Tenedos, where many Achaeans made sacrifices to the Gods on their way home after the Trojan war, would be the isle of Thanet. Best wishes, --Antiphus (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you've moved the info the the History of Margate page, and added Draper's mill to the attractions section. Fair enough, but would you do me a favour. There's 20 Kent articles needing assessment. I can't do them as I've either created or been heavily involved in them. Hopeully they should all be at least start class as I don't like creating stubs if I can avoid it. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:A nous les petites Anglaises.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea how to do it and don't have time to learn. If it doesn't qualify just go ahead and delete. Pgr94 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

My link did not break Wikipedia rules.

"What should be linked

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

According to the fourth sentence, linking to the page with the Bose Companion 2 Series II review was appropriate. This is the link: http://holzstukka.proboards81.com/index.cgi?board=audioreviews

It was in this article: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://bestencyclopedia.com/Bose_computer_speakers#Bose_Companion_2_Series_2

Why was it removed?

Thank you.

Twexcom (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The links do not meet at least: WP:LINKSTOAVOID #4 and #10. Since you joined Wikipedia you have only added links to one website, yet the subjects are unrelated (artificial intelligence, audio equipment) hence probably WP:LINKSPAM. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a vehicle for promoting a website. Pgr94 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the following page, both reference links at the bottom are avoidable links according to #4 and #10 in http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://bestencyclopedia.com/Wikipedia:LINKSTOAVOID#Links_normally_to_be_avoided because they are forums, and may be for website promotion, correct?

http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://bestencyclopedia.com/Sony_MDR-V6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.29.2 (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Why haven't you answered?

On this page (which you removed my link from): http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://bestencyclopedia.com/Sony_MDR-7506

The reference links at the bottom to the Headfi and Audioholics forums are against wikipedia rules (links normally to be avoided, #4, and #10), why weren't they removed, but mine was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twexcom (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply because it's not an article I am involved with. You added linkspam to an article I am involved with which led me to verify and remove your other (linkspam) contributions. Pgr94 (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why, oh why, could you not have checked with me first before reverting the article? I have tried to be patient, but really: this article is about the Thanet District, which began life in 1974, and so could hardly have had all the things happening to it that you believe. I have put all the information - and more - into the revived (by me!) Isle of Thanet (IoT) article, which is where it belongs. That has a history stretching back some 7000 years when it first appeared as an island. Take a look now at the IoT article and you will see what I mean.

Have a look, also, at all the other articles in Kent on District Councils, and you will see that few of them carry information about what was before 1974: certainly not to the degree that appears here, and very often much less. I have literally spent hours making sure that what I have said refers simply and solely to the Thanet District - and you have undone all that work at a stroke! In addition it is not set out in the style of a good Wiki article - far too many lists; and the Geography section is pathetic - there's more to Thanet than beaches (which is out of date anyway - there's now ten in 2008); and why could not move the great list of future happenings (again often frowned upon in Wiki) be included under Economy (and again - there's more to that than shops!). Again, there is also an article called Thanet District Council, which repeats much of what is said here. I attempted to make that article a bit more rounded, too - I trust you haven't reverted that as well! I inserted notes in all the talk pages as to what I was doing, but you obviously haven't read them. Please come back to me so that we can discuss this. Peter Shearan (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied here: pgr94 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Keratolytics, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Keratolytics has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Keratolytics, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the way you handled the (Legg and Hutter, 2007) issue on the Intelligence article was less than optimal. What a fuss for one reference! While I believe your intentions were good, long protracted discussions wear out editors and discourage them from contributing. Personally, I have come away wondering whether I should have a break from contributing to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia must try to attract highly skilled contributors; skilled in the specialist domains, even if not necessarily in WP policy. Looking through your edits, it seems most of your recent contributions are reverts/deletions. It is good to expect high standards, but rather than simply using deletion as your tool I would like to suggest you try improvement - Wikipedia will benefit. pgr94 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• "less than optimal": I strongly disagree. Following Wikipedia's policies is standard operating procedure. Ask any admin.
• "What a fuss for one reference!": One reference must comply with Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and reliable sourcing as much as a thousand sources. Have you read those policies? Do they mean anything to you?
• I have come away wondering whether I should have a break from contributing to Wikipedia": Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia (the most fundamental of policies). It clearly says "any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited". If you have a hard time following that principle, then maybe you do need a wikibreak.
• "Wikipedia must try to attract highly skilled contributors; skilled in the specialist domains": That part of your statement I fully agree with. See comments on my user page.
• "even if not necessarily in WP policy": That part of your statement I generally disagree with. Although flexibility is (and should be) afforded inexperienced editors as they learn policies, that does not mean that policy violations should be ignored or that editors' violations should not be (civilly) pointed out.
• "it seems most of your recent contributions are reverts/deletions": And if you'll take the time to look closely rathan than just taking a quick glance, you'll see that over 95% of those reverts and deletions are for blatant vandalism. Please tell me what is wrong with removing vandalism. And many of my other reverts, although not for blatant vandalism, are for clear-cut policy or consensus violations. If you can cite a Wikipedia policy that says I should not do either of those, please do so. And if you'll look even more closely, you'll see that often my reverts come after discussion (sometimes lengthy) on talk pages with a clear consensus favoring my edit.
• "rather than simply using deletion as your tool I would like to suggest you try improvement": And that is exactly what I did. I pointed out your sourcing errors (and even worse, possible misprepresentation of sources -- a far worse violation) so that the article could be improved. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a personal website. Wikipedia has no professional editorial control like most other encyclopedias have, so it must rely on concerned editors to make sure that information is properly sourced. Otherwise, anyone could write anything about any topic, and we would end up with a huge mess. If I made the same mistakes you did, I would fully expect others to respond as I responded. In fact, that is exactly what happened when I was an inexperienced editor, and I used that constructive criticism to improve my skills and thereby improved the quality of Wikipedia.

Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Have you even read the article? Just deleting it really doesn't get us anywhere! Treating peer-reviewed publications the same way as a vandalism is not my idea of improving an encyclopedia. Please read the article - it's good! pgr94 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)"

• Yes, I have read the article. Have you read the Wikipedia policies?
• peer-reviewed publications:That's the second time you have made the claim that you used peer-reviewed publications, so this is the second time I must point out that you were not obtaining your information from a peer-reviewed publication, or at least not before I pointed out the problems with your sourcing. You were obtaining the information from a one-sentence summary of a publication that may not even have been written by the author. Your next strategy of obtaining information from the author's website may be an improvement, but you have not yet properly cited the specific places on that website.
• "Treating peer-reviewed publications the same way as a vandalism": That's the second time you have attempted to put words in my mouth, so this is the second time that I must correct you. I did not say that peer-reviewed publications should be treated the same way as vandalism. I have said that vandalism should be removed. I have said that when peer reviewed publication are used, they should be properly cited. Do you understand the difference? Making false accusations about me does nothing to improve either Wikipedia or your own credibility. And if done repeatedly, false accusations can constitute a personal attack.
• "Please read the article - it's good!": Thank you. I helped write parts of it.

Now, I don't care to continue an endless argument with you. If you have questions about sourcing or citations, I'm happy to try to respond. But repeating the same inaccurate and false statements about me or what I have said serves absolutely no purpose. So please accept my thanks for your efforts. Have a good day. Ward3001 (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for not protracting so I'll leave you to restore the reference back into Intelligence in the form that you see fit. pgr94 (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would except I don't know the specific source for the information. If you can give me the specific links, I'm happy to add the citation if the source is appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you're pulling my leg. You've read the paper; you saw that there are a collection of definitions for "intelligence" from various fields. The paper is available from the author's website and it appears in a book and there is a link to the publisher's website. I supplied ISBN, page numbers, authors, title, volume and all the links in my edits that you have reverted. I can't see how I can supply more than that. pgr94 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What paper?!? You have not cited a paper. You first cited a website here that gave the one-sentence summary; you did not cite a link to the book. Then you cited the general website for an author, not a specific paper. So I (nor anyone apparently except you) knows the specific source for the information. Give me a specific URL link to the "paper" that you refer to. As for you citing "ISBN, page numbers, authors, title, volume" for the book, you told me you did not directly access the book. Did you get the information directly from the book Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms (i.e., you looked at the book) or didn't you? It will help my confusion tremendously if you can give me a simple yes or no to that question. If you did not directly look at the book in question, please forget using that as a source. If you got it from the author's website, give me a link so that when I click the link it will go directly to a page that describes the "70 definitions of intelligence" because this link that you have provided to the author's website does not do that. You are running around in circles talking about where you got the information, but you never give us the specific source so that we can look at it. I don't mind helping create a citation, but I don't wish to chase you in those circles. So until I can get the specific information from you, this is my last word on the matter unless you decide to continue restoring the information with improper sources or improper citations. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paper, you know the source.: Please note that this is the first time you have given a direct link to the paper. The first time. If you had done that to begin with, all of this back and forth and wasted time would have been avoided.

I don't have time for this: Nor do I. I will "keep out of each other's way" as long as you don't violate policies on pages that I watch or read.

I'm beginning to realise you like going back and forth for kicks": You deserve a no-personal-attacks template for this statement since it is yet another false allegation about me. But since you're a regular, I'll just say that it would be a proper thing for you to review Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks.

Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I added a section to Talk:Associative array giving my justification for my reversion of your edits and opening up a discussion, as I believe that your edits are inconsistent with the common understanding of an association list. I would appreciate any comments you could make, or any citations you could give on an association list implementation (called as such) that indeed uses balanced trees. Thanks! cfallin|(talk) 11:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my edit was consistent with the NIST Dictionary of algorithms and data-structures. More good sources would help decide either way. pgr94 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Proprietary protocol. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I left a comment on Proprietary protocol's talk page. Hope this helps! QuackCD (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimmi, have you considered writing a separate article on closed-source software cannibalising useful parts of proprietary software? This would help other editors see your position more clearly. Then if desirable you can propose replacement or a merge. I have seen other editors develop a draft in their user space to not get interference of other editors too early on. Just a thought. pgr94 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it was decided in previous discussion (see the talk page) that they're the same topic and the closed source software article was merged. I'm not trying to push a view... the term is a generic way of saying the same thing, I've never even seen the term "proprietary software" used to mean close in real life, so, to me at least, it seems a fair enough compromise. I don't think there's ever going to be any chance of having any open source advoacate agreeing to use anything but that term; And considering there's no such thing as closed source advocacy, and the nature of the site attracts the first, I'll just step away from the matter, I'll stick to less debatable topics any work on areas I know a little less about. Thanks for the suggestion though, sorry for all the antagonistic editing between the two of us, I don't think there's anything personal in it, but I'm never sure what I mean. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Come to find out your suggestion lead him to restore the article, make original research, but eventually result in other editors becoming skeptical of its existence again. See Talk:Closed_source_software. James failed to listen to his own advice and yours. --Ashawley (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and kind comments on the rope-pulling with the Compiler article. The ball is rolling on the History of compiler writing. I'll be adding to it. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Glad to have been of help. pgr94 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

thanks for the input of capitalisation on Royal harbour, ramsgate and its variant. I will just explain though why it was done in lower case - this means that when typed in to the search bar, it will go through regardless of capital letters (whereas using the upper case R means typing "royal harbour ramsgate" doesn't necessarily come up in the search, so the effect was to create a double redirect. it how, and all four pages now point to the sub page of history of ramsgate. The capitalisation only matters when its the actual article - lower case is useful for redirects! Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The reason I made the change was because of the red links in List of organisations in the United Kingdom with a royal charter which incidentally still needs fixing. Thanks for the explanation. Regards. pgr94 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You just deleted "valid" in the article on analogy, claiming that "valid" has a very precise meaning in logic. While I fully agree with you in that "valid" has a very precise meaning in logic, I do not understand the deletion, since that section is certainly not on logic. Out of logic, "valid" has quite a wider meaning. Would you explain your position in the article's talk page? Velho (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about this edit. You say "that section is certainly not on logic" referring to the phrase "valid arguments". I believe arguments in this context are all about proof, inference and reasoning, and therefore also logic. Again, if you can find a reliable source that says analogy is a valid form of inference I'm quite happy to restore it, but I don't think you will. Cheers, pgr94 (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added "citation needed" to the first sentence of Onychomycosis#Diagnosis. Since that's from your edit creating that section, I'm posting here in case you know its source. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I added this in September 2007. I was reading various sources at the time and carelessly wrote this sentence without recording the source. Despite having had a good look, I can't find it again . So as per WP:V I will remove it. pgr94 (talk) 11:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pgr94!! I noticed you reverted an edit of mine in the history of artificial intelligence,regarding al-Khwārizmī.Though it´s true that he made great contributions to algebra,he did not invent it,as it can be seen in the algebra article.If al-Khwārizmī article says otherwise,it´s wrong.Trust me. Also,I recommend you to be very careful with articles related to islamic science.Me and other editors have been struggling for weeks with original research and systemic bias in them,made by a particular problematic editor.They have a lot of mistakes and distortions,so don´t believe all they say.Take care--Knight1993 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Knight, I wrote a comprehensive reply but lost it because of flaky wifi. Executive summary: he is still referred to as "Father of algebra" on al-Khwārizmī's page and on Timeline of algebra, but I have no problem with your latest edit. pgr94 (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pgr94. Nice to meet you! Sorry, I'd add a low quality source in the topic of natural remedies for Onychomycosis. After reading WP:MEDRS, I understand that blog is not a reliable source of reading material. I have read these journals:

Romero-Cerecero O, Román-Ramos R, Zamilpa A, Jiménez-Ferrer JE, Rojas-Bribiesca G, Tortoriello J., 2009. Clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of two concentrations of the Ageratina pichinchensis extract in the topical treatment of onychomycosis. J Ethnopharmacol 126, 74-78.

Romero-Cerecero, O., Zamilpa, A., Jiménez-Ferrer, J.E., Rojas-Bribiesca, M.G., Román-Ramos, R., Tortoriello, J., 2008. Double-blind clinical trial for evaluating the effectiveness and tolerability of Ageratina pichinchensis extract on patients with mild to moderate onychomycosis. A comparative study with ciclopirox. Planta Medica 74, 1430–1435.

Are these two journals can be a reliable source of reading material? Hopefully, these readings can be useful.

Happy to discuss with you. Thank you for your guidance.

Arbowmd (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Arbowmd

Hello, Yes, these are definitely better sources than a blog. It's best to avoid blogs until you have fully taken into account the advice about exceptions in the Wikipedia guidelines. FYI, you can easily reference the above journal papers by writing <ref>PMID 19683043</ref> <ref>PMID 18671197</ref>. Hope that helps. pgr94 (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my entry. Please correct if there is something wrong. Thank you. Arbowmd (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Arbowmd

Actually, the sources don't say the same as your edit. You need to stick more closely to what the sources say. For example, the articles say Ageratina pichinchensis has these effects, not snakeroot in general. pgr94 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pgr94. The reference that I provided for Clocksin 2003 is correct. Here it is again:

Closksin, W. F. (2003). Artificial intelligence and the future. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 361(1809), 1721-1748. doi:10.1098/rsta.2003.1232

However, I realized that when you click on the doi, a page appears with no results found (even though this doi is correct). I retrieved this article from the JSTOR database. The citation that they provide is the following:

Citation

Artificial Intelligence and the Future

Author(s): William F. Clocksin

Source: Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 361, No. 1809, Information, Knowledge and Technology (Aug. 15, 2003), pp. 1721-1748

Published by: The Royal Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3559219

I hope that this helps. Thank you for pointing out this reference. Edenplib2 (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Edenplib2

Hello Edenplib. A couple of points:

• You should provide citation details in the article not just here. "Clocksin (2003)" is not an adequate reference.
• I personally don't agree with many of the claims that are made in the paragraph you added. In Wikipedia that counts for nothing of course. However, according to google scholar Clocksin 2003 was only cited 7 times in the last 7 years. And of those citations some are self-references (by the author himself) and others are by people in other fields. Given that there are many other sources far more heavily cited, I'd be inclined to say that these claims fall under WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE.
• There are some better sources if you look under AI winter and History of AI.

Hope that helps. pgr94 (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work with this article. I noticed it has a lot of content from an old new scientist article, if you'd like a copy of it to use in writing the article (and to check for copyvios) let me know and I'll email you a copy. Smartse (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I hadn't planned on spending so long fixing it up, but it turned out to be a very interesting subject with recent developments. Thanks for sorting out the references, I haven't mastered that yet. Yes, I'll certainly have a look at the New Scientist article if you send it to me. pgr94 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done so, the details of the article can be found here. I'll try to work on the article as well, if I get a chance, I didn't realise that we had one on this but I'm glad that we do. Smartse (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look when I get time. Recently, there's even talk of plants having an equivalent of a nervous system and "thinking and remembering". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926 pgr94 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I think it would be fair to say that the secition you added the dubious tag to is dubious lol. After all the checks and first round of copyediting my next step is to start adding cn tags wherever I think they are really necessary. For example to ensure that there is "one ref per paragraph" as in the GA guide. The step after that would be to add cns in other less obvious places. After completing as many refs as possible and any other changes it could do with a peer review. Once that is done and refs are found it can hopefully go as a GAC or FAC.

Anyway I just wanted to say that instead of tagging it, as we have plenty of material in the article needing work and I don't want to go to the effort of looking for refs for immediately obviously dubious material, if you come across sentences like that it might be better to either hide them or move them to a subpage we can create while we try and get the article up to FA status (I am assuming that you wanted to collaborate on that as you put those comments in the talk page?).

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that the article overall is lacking references, but the reason I tagged the Turing test/3-laws sentence in particular is because I believe it to be blatantly false. Perhaps I should have simply deleted it, but I guess I was being cautious. Anyway, well done on your work on the article. pgr94 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup - I agree that it is almost definitely an untruth but I think that we would do best just to hide any dodgy bits for now and we can delete them later if no one objects (or put them onto a subpage). There also appear to be several bits of OR in there as well; I have hidden the more obvious ones that I came across. When I first read the page it seemed like it was written too well to be just from normal Wikiprocesses. A lot of the really obvious OR I have hidden, maybe two or three sentences, but other parts which seem OR are written so well it look s like an expert has written them in a similar way to a four or five page article that I would expect to see in a science related magazine.

I did check parts of the text against google searches (book and news) to see if there was any copyvio - as that was my first suspicion, and although there are great similarities between some paragraphs and some found on the internet it appears that the Wiki page entries were first by a good year or two. In particular there is one Australian editor who may well have contributed to the WIki article who has written in a very similar style for a popular magazine.

Anyway - back to the work at hand lol - I will reply to your points on the talk page over there rather than clutter up this page lol. I am hoping that we can collaborate - I did paste notices on the Science fiction project and the Asimov page but no-one has replied as yet. I am a member of the Robotics project and GOCE, although the Robotics project appears a little lacking in active members it is mainly due to a lot of them being scholars and so having outside commitments, so have asked a couple of experienced members of GOCE to have a look once the refs are filled and any other changes made before it goes to peer review and then GAN/FAC.

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments but I cannot agree. If Wikipedia is going to have concise but comprehensive articles which are coherent, near-stubs such as Port of Ramsgate (2.6kB) need to either to grow or be absorbed into a larger article; in this case Ramsgate (26kB) which already had significant content about the port. I deleted approximately 300 words from the "Port of Ramsgate" while only adding a 100 to "Ramsgate". That must be an improvement especially as "Ramsgate" size remained effectively static (in wiki terms an average sized article). Agreed the structure and format of Ramsgate does need improving but the content is comprehensive and of about the same depth for all the topics. I only got involved because of a similar problem with "Richborough" and "Port Richborough" that I was looking at.Trackorack (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Port Richborough's history and significance, but if there is plenty to write why not focus on extending that article rather than claiming that Port Ramsgate is too short. Port Ramsgate is a major active port, it played a significant role in several wars, including the Napoleonic wars and has a large marina. There's plenty to cover on the subject. You're of course also welcome to expand on Port Ramsgate! pgr94 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PortOfRamgate.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you replace a fully expanded {{cite journal}} with a {{cite doi}}? The cite doi template is filled out by a bot using cite journal templates from other articles... Tools such as this allow you to fully expand a ref from a PMID or smiliar unique identifier without increasing bot traffic, though in the case of the ref you removed all the details appear to already have been accurate. Jebus989^✰ 13:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no year in the citation when I looked. I wanted to know the year of the publication - that's the only reason. pgr94 (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah my mistake - the year was there. But both citation methods are perfectly fine as far as I am aware. pgr94 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'm not claiming your broke any rules, it just seemed a strange edit from someone who was perhaps not familiar with how {{cite doi}} and {{cite journal}} worked together, especially with the edit summary 'fix ref'. Oh well, s'all good Jebus989^✰ 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Pgr94, I surfed by your user page (I think not for the first time) and your user talk page after seeing your recent edits to Intelligence. I appreciate that you are looking at aspects of that topic other than human intelligence as viewed by psychometricians. I get the impression from the kind of articles that you edit that you may have some access to some high-quality sources. I would like to do pretty much of a top-to-bottom rewrite of that article, but I would like to do it collaboratively with other editors who have seen that article grow and develop and who have good sources at hand, thus I thought I should mention this interest to you. One thought I have is to visit the several academic libraries in my town, look for specialized encyclopedias on medicine, psychology, and social sciences for their articles about "intelligence" (of which I have already seen quite a few). Then I would make sure I had at hand the best secondary sources recommended by those encyclopedia articles, and ponder how to convey the full breadth of the subject of intelligence, human and nonhuman, in the Wikipedia article you and I both watch. I would be glad to have your advice as I do that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. If you want my advice, it would be to avoid a complete rewrite but to make incremental improvements backed up with good sources. Large changes are likely to meet resistance from one camp or another especially on a subject that straddles so many disciplines. pgr94 (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Actually I was not making a distinction. If we improve one of the articles to make the other redundant then the implication is that we delete that other one, which I am assuming would be reasoning for no other reason than that it is currently the less worked on and smaller article of the two. Maybe the word "delete" just sounds more rushed and aggressive but that is not the intention. There is no rush, but I have seen merge discussions get forgotten for literally years, and in the meantime the problem gets bigger as some editors work on one and some on the other. My apologies. One tweak to what you are saying though is that some of the material in reasoning might be better in other articles than reason, at least in terms of its "main" treatment (see WP:SUMMARY). The basic practical question comes down to what things need to be improved in the "main" articles. If you can agree with that I suggest we continue discussion on the article talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you have tagged this as a fringe theory. Wikipedia states:

“We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.”

I fail to see how it it departs from a mainstream view, if is does perhaps you might let me know what that mainstream view is. Nor can I see how it can be interpreted hypothetical, conjectural or speculative. It is based on thorough research that has been published in “A” ranked academic journals (which can be seen by following the links to Wikisource).

I also have difficulty understanding what you mean by “there are hardly any articles on this subject”. If you mean “published papers” I would have though the reference list was adequate. regards,--Logicalgregory (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Two questions: 1) How many peer-reviewed articles mention "logico-linguistic modeling"? 2) Are you an author/ co-author of any of these articles? pgr94 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the article compound modifier, especially the first paragraph in the "Exceptions" section. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, -- about 3 years ago, you added a table to Answer set programming; I've recently extended that table significantly, but can't figure out what the columns "explicit sets" and "explicit lists" mean. Could you provide me with a clue of some sort? (I can provide a proper formal edit to the article if you point me in the right direction...) Thanks, linas (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You can remove those columns. At the time I was thinking along the lines of Prolog where there is support for lists, albeit syntactic sugar. I'm not sure it's any use or very neutral. pgr94 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks will see if I can find a ref suitable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This review says the matter is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

In the higher order programming section of the Prolog Wikipedia entry there is a simple Prolog text to compute some perfect numbers. Does this Prolog code have some authorship and origin? Is it copied from some text book, or was it invented for the Wikipedia entry?

Best Regards

Janburse (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: I just found a reference:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.prolog/tree/browse_frm/month/1988-12/54b6809382290289

Seems to have been a post by Thomas Sj|land on comp.lang.prolog, dating dec 16, 1988 and titled Christmas pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janburse (talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. FYI there is a discussion for deletion of the french article : fr:Discussion:Jean-Philippe de Lespinay/Suppression. Lanredec (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Lanredec, but I am not getting involved any more. Grenier simply ignores Wikipedia's guidelines and wastes people's time. His intentions are certainly not to improve Wikipedia. Admins have been slow to intervene on this one. pgr94 (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, pgr94. Is it still your view today? Tell me please what areas I should improve ? Thank you. Pat grenier (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

pgr94, 5 times, I asked you a question without getting an answer ! It's not very polite. Would I offended you? In any case, you are offending me. Is it the custom of WP to let contributors down ? Pat grenier (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a consensus for deletion. I put a summary of discussions here. Lanredec (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know. Pat grenier mentions you here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jean-Philippe_de_Lespinay AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Andy. pgr94 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding edits a person associated with Cochrane Inst. has made, beware of calling out what you believe to be the editor's real-life identity. I got into a similar situation last year with another COI editor, and was accused of outing him/her. This has serious repercussions due to Wikipedia's privacy policy even though I felt the editor brought it on himself. You may want to consider asking an admin for reversion on the user page you edited. — Brianhe (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Brianhe. I have taken it to the helpdesk. Learn something new every day! pgr94 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you are a frequent editor of the Expert system article. User:Pat grenier has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for his behaviour. Would you take a look at what needs to be done to the article? Otherwise, I'm considering reverting the article to its state before he started editing. —Ruud 12:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! About oil of cloves, I will respond on the talk page. This "blog" is actually an NYT article, so the reference needs to be taken seriously. If the FDA doesn't approve of it as such, state that directly in the article. But the NYT article also mentions a study, and that study should be mentioned too. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, replied here. pgr94 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit is this and we're trying to figure out what the ACM reference verifies. Discussion here. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a word missing in the section you just added to Latin square -- I am not sure what you intended. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Brain simulation, Pgr94!

Wikipedia editor Robvanvee just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good article!

To reply, leave a comment on Robvanvee's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Pgr94. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Pgr94. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The article Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Basically a WP:CATALOG without any sourced entries, and the whole article isn't based on a notable topic.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. wumbolo ^^^ 21:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Competitions and prizes in artificial intelligence until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. wumbolo ^^^ 16:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Pgr94. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:PortOfRamsgateLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The image is in use, see Port of Ramsgate. I'm not sure why it was replaced with a photograph. Please do not remove. pgr94 (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not perform controversial page moves without opening a WP:Requested move discussion. In this case, there is already a WP:DABPAGE at TNBC (disambiguation), which argues strongly against any page move without a WP:RM discussion. In addition, the target you moved the page to was also incorrect as per WP:NCTV, etc., so you should not even attempt a move like this until you've determined the correct parenthetical disambiguation. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)