User talk:Caleb Stanford/Archive 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constant-recursive sequence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bot! :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caleb Stanford

Thank you for creating Gödel Lecture.

User:Lovkal, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I'm thinking that bluelinks could be made in each of the award winner's articles to Gödel Lecture to improve its reachability!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Lovkal}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

lovkal (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Constant-recursive sequence

added a link pointing to Closed form

Weighted automaton

added a link pointing to Epsilon transition

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for participating in the content discussion for this article! I wanted to let you know the split-merge has now been done. SpuriousCorrelation 18:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rust (programming language), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Erlang and Haskell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb Stanford! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Placing external links before references?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb Stanford! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to add an image to a BLP at the individual's request?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pairwise Compatibility Graph, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just letting you know that I reverted your revert of my replacing the short description here with None. In general, that's the accepted form for any article where the title is sufficiently descriptive that the short description doesn't help disambiguate it. See here for a brief conversation about this in the short description wikiproject. The genera guideline is at WP:SDNONE. Rusalkii (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusalkii: Thank you for the message -- I was not aware of WP:SDNONE so I learned something new! This policy makes perfect sense. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the work on the article. Do you think there are any blockers for nominating it as a WP:GA? 0xDeadbeef 04:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef: Likewise, thank you for your work! Two things that stand out to me right now are the History section, which feels like it needs expansion and is not comprehensive, and the Performance section, which is important but a stub, and needs at least 2-3 paragraphs. In general, I think GA nomination would be great. Those are the two things I would personally try to get done first. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out. I will work on them when I have time. 0xDeadbeef 06:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I don't know if those count as blockers, though -- I don't have prior experience with the GA nomination process and what standards are expected before a first nomination. I have previously only tried peer review which seems to suffer from poor availability of reviewers. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for review. I've read the policies in more detail and it looks to me that this is not simply a pass/fail but more like academic peer reviews. 0xDeadbeef 14:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. Thanks. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reduced from top to high [1] with the comment 'bump importance top->high (less important than type system and type theory IMO, both currently high'.

I disagree with this relative assessment: semantics is more important than what is normally meant by type systems (i.e. an effective assignment of types to values or expressions), and the application of type theory to computer science is generally done within semantics. If you look at the history of the discipline, I think this becomes clear. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: Thanks for your input. If I can ask for your further opinion: in your judgment, is Semantics (computer science) one of the top 100-150 most important articles in computer science on Wikipedia, as listed at this page?

I've been pruning it down, and not sure which PL-related articles to include on the list. If there is a consensus, I might be happy with including all three of semantics, type systems, and type theory and bumping a couple of the other articles like Object-oriented programming and Functional programming down to high. One problem with the Semantics article is that it's less directly applicable to your average computer scientist or practitioner than type systems and programming paradigms. In other words, semantics as a topic of study is really specific to programming language theorists (even though it's arguably the foundation of all of computer science). I think the article also just needs to be expanded and improved. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another candidate for bumping down is Evaluation strategy. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone more interested in history and theory than modern trends, a definite yes in my opinion to your first question. But I don't know that I am the person you want to ask: to give bearings, I'd rate Fortran and Algol higher than C++, Java, Javascript and Python, but that shows how I am less interested in what is "directly applicable to your average computer scientist or practitioner" than the people who generally do these assessments. I'd certainly rate Tony Hoare higher than Hoare logic.

The semantics article is not in a great state, but I don't think that should drive assessments: the point is not to showcase our best material, but to identify topics we are failing to do justice to. Few of the Vital 100 articles are decent, let alone have passed GA or FA review.

Before bumping down core ideas in programming like FP and OO I'd take a look at the amount of internet, AI, security, and trendy technologies listed there. Evaluation strategy isn't top importance, but neither IMO is Augmented reality. The exact count of articles in the category might be inflated because of closely related concepts getting individual articles: we have Computer science, Computational science, Computer engineering, Information science, and Theoretical computer science, all of which are demarcations of the study of computing with nebulous boundaries and lots of overlap. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your perspective makes sense. I'd be on board with swapping out Evaluation strategy for Semantics (computer science) (keeping FP and OOP at top), but I'd like to get some input from others first, particularly those outside of theory/PL. I totally agree that the quality of an article should not drive its assessment. I think there are certainly other articles that could bump down, but it's hard to say which without making it a political decision about which fields of CS are most important... for example, before I edited the list, it was very heavily theory, databases, PL, and cryptography focused, and there were no articles in many areas of systems and AI. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested for third opinion at Talk:Rust (programming language)#Name origin. Per guidelines I have to notify you in your talk page, although I think you might have already seen it. Happy editing! 0xDeadbeef 23:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for TRW from 1965 to 1970. That's why I have pictures of the buildings. They were new at the time. I did not know Buie, but have done a major copy edit for improvements on his article. I renominated it GAN. My job there was an an electronics technician. Made really good money.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. That's very cool! :) I think the article is in better shape after your thorough edit pass. Best of luck with further edits. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Thanks for the prompt revert on the Yes article, but Squire wasn't an original member of Mabel Greer. The group's own article indicates that first line-up was Bayley, Hagger, and Rutledge. Squire and Banks joined the group later on. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Did you check the reference? It says Squire formed it in January 1968. So not sure how to resolve this inconsistency. I could look a bit more into the source if I obtain a real copy, I was working on excerpts provided by Google Books... Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote:

In January 1968 Chris Squire put together a new band called Mabel Greer's Toyshop. Says Peter, "I think he was going to call the band Yes instead of Mabel Greer's Toyshop. And I said he couldn't do that because it was my idea. I had thought of the name Yes a couple of years beforehand.

May be an error in the source? Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb, an article, Draft:Decatur Tribune, that I drafted and submitted for review in Articles for creation was declined by Afc reviewer User:Idoghor Melody on 6 June 2022. Idoghor suggested that I get a second opinion. See discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Idoghor_Melody/Archive_2#RE_Draft:Decatur_Tribune I have subsequently made significant improvements and now I kindly ask that after reviewing this discussion that you might render your opinion. I posted a request on the AfC help page on 28 June, but I have had no reply. BuffaloBob (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BuffaloBob, it looks reasonable to me but I'm afraid I have no expertise in the area. Maybe ask someone who has written/reviewed other newspaper Wiki pages? Best regards, Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Did you add the current references after the submission was declined? I see it now has 7, not sure how many there were before. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I added 5 more references. Numbers 2 & 6 were the only references when I first submitted it. I have tried to find an AfC reviewer with newspaper experience but the only one that I could find is User:Newslinger, and he has not been online since April. I don't see that Idoghor has any more experience with newspaper articles than you. What is the process if I resubmit it? Will Idoghor be the reviewer? BuffaloBob (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stanford and @BuffaloBob: Only 2 sources were there when I declined, now it's 7, better than before. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See "https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2018" Rust ordering for improved performance is definitely a "thing" and dramatically improves performance over C/C++ in many cases because of this feature of the language. This example would probably be considered WP:OR but if we can find a source that mentions it that would be good. War (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the playground link, what does this show? I think you want to print the raw memory at THREE_AM to see what it contains.

I did like mentioning something about this and was sorry to see it go. If I have a chance I'll loop back to this and see if some textbooks reference it. I only quickly scanned, but didn't find a discussion on reordering fields at the page you linked. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The playground link shows nothing because it does not include a gist parameter. What you saw when you clicked on that link was your latest submission to playground, which has something to do with THREE_AM? 0xDeadbeef 07:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course, that explains it. LOL Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ya. I mucked it up. Now I know about shared links. This is what I should have shared, "https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=release&edition=2018&gist=7f109748e08e73b5df140265852fe8ae" War (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb! Hope your assistant professorship is going well.

Was working on mmap and I realized there's some disagreement over the best way to format standard functions. Which of these is most pleasing to you?

In computing, mmap(2) is a POSIX-compliant Unix system call that maps files or devices into memory. When no longer in use, memory-mapped pointers should be unmapped with munmap(2). Some malloc implementations use mmap internally.

In computing, mmap(2) is a POSIX-compliant Unix system call that maps files or devices into memory. When no longer in use, memory-mapped pointers should be unmapped with munmap(2). Some malloc implementations use mmap internally.

In computing, mmap(2) is a POSIX-compliant Unix system call that maps files or devices into memory. When no longer in use, memory-mapped pointers should be unmapped with munmap(2). Some malloc implementations use mmap internally.

Personally I like the third best, followed by the second. The rectangles in the first are very annoying, but this style seems to be most common ([2] for example). Thoughts? Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks! :)

I also prefer 3 the most, followed by 1, then 2. But I think I value consistency across articles over this particular choice. Is there a reason 1 is used on all the other articles? I don't suppose there's some published standard for this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science would be a good place to ask. Caleb Stanford (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yes (band) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Duonaut -- Duonaut (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yes (band) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yes (band) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Duonaut -- Duonaut (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yes (band) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yes (band) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Duonaut -- Duonaut (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caleb Stanford,

Thank you for creating List of Yes appearances.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I'm not seeing how this would help. If they are appearing as the band then it can be listed at Yes discography for Other appearances. Same with the spinoff groups.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|AngusWOOF}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Thank you for the feedback -- I'll raise an issue for discussion at Talk:Yes (band). Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of Yes appearances, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: Well, thanks, but this is not content I created, but content moved from another page where it didn't fit. I will simply move the content to another page instead. Unreferenced is not the same as not verifiable (WP:THENFIXIT). Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yes (band), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that given a choice between Life and World, the answer was Yes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yes (band). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yes (band)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on turning Donald X. Vaccarino into an article. Do you see anything else at User:BOZ/Draft pages that you might have the sources to help bring back into article space? (That's only about half of the designers pages I know of that have been deleted/redirected, if you really want a project to tackle.) BOZ (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive sentiment! I don't think I have time to tackle these other articles at the moment, but I hope someone does -- this seems like a space where a lot more names deserve their own article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Happy holidays :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could provide the specific article! I searched and searched and couldn't find it. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caleb Stanford. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Yes appearances, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Caleb Stanford. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Yes appearances".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rust (programming language), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A new article you might have improvements for? Skyerise (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caleb. I work for LastPass, a password management tool. I have disclosed my affiliation with LastPass and requested impartial editors review what I see as major neutrality and citation issues here. I saw that you have an interest in computer security and was hoping you might be willing to review my comments and make any appropriate changes. Since I have a conflict of interest, I shouldn’t be editing any of these controversies/criticisms myself, but I can answer questions, do legwork, or provide any assistance. Thanks AmyMarchiando (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gödel Lecturers has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I work for Lenovo, the manufacturer of IdeaPad. The current IdeaPad page has about 30+ sections and sub-sections about individual products. A lot of the information is out-dated, incomplete, etc. I was hoping to replace it with a single product table, similar to what is currently on the ThinkPad page. I've been following up for months and got plenty of support from impartial editors (I think), but the page still has 30+ sections on individual products. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look and see if you agree RE slimming it down? Let me know if there is any way I can be more helpful. Best regards. StuartGill (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]