User talk:DavidGries

Hello, DavidGries, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

Hi. While editing an article about yourself is usually frowned upon, obvious exceptions are unsourced contentious material in biographies of living persons and you were right to remove it. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos "frowned upon"... Please read

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to see why. Kleuske (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, DavidGries, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

1. Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
2. Please send an e-mail to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Amortias (T)(C) 20:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked after receiving confirmation of identity ticket:2017081510008669 --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Q.E.D. have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I had added a short section to Limerick (poetry) --I first proposed it in the talk part and nobody said anything about it. The section discussed the website oedilf.com, which is writing a limerick for every word of the dictionary. It now has over 110,000 limericks. I thought this was a useful addition. It was removed by someone, without any discussion.

If I just the section again, someone will just remove it.

How do I enter into a discussion with someone about the merits of this edition?

Thanks. DavidGries (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi DavidGries there are two main ways to discuss content: directly with the other party on their talk page (in this case Inox-art, secondly on the talk page of the article. However it was correctly reverted as it is clearly just promotion of that site, it is not encyclopedic content about the subject. Also as The Omnificent English Dictionary in Limerick Form already exists it's just duplication. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... This is in regard to my last question about adding a section to Limerick (poetry) that discusses website oedilf.com. Please help me with my next question and then I will accept whatever it said. I am just trying to understand. You said that "it was correctly reverted as it is promotion of a site, it is not encyclopedic content about the subject."

But I claim that it IS encyclopedic content. Where else can you find 110,000 limericks? The existing sections provide only a limited number of limericks --perhaps 100, or 200 at most. My attempt at a section provides a resource for the reader that goes far beyond what is available elsewhere --110,000 limericks and growing. Isn't this worth including? DavidGries (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidGries: Hi there! I see you already posted on Talk:Limerick (poetry), and did not receive a response, so you updated Limerick (poetry), and then your edits were reverted. This happens sometimes. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I suggest you invite the other editor to discuss your suggestion at Talk:Limerick (poetry), and ask them why they reverted your edit. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DavidGries! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 09:45, Monday, July 11, 2022 (

Interference freedom, 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 B-Class, which is recorded on its

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!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DavidGries! Your additions to

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images.
  non-free content criteria
  in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I see that you removed the information about work by Apt. I will put it back in, for without it, the paragraph doesn't make sense. But I will do my best to do it properly, following Wikipedia's rules. DavidGries (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 August 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Juris Hartmanis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your continuing work on List of programming language researchers Arjayay (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to work on it. I have perhaps another 10-15 to add, and I will alert some of those added (whose email address I can find) and ask them about other possible people.

DavidGries (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion - a slight problem and a possible solution - which, IMHO, would improve the list.
As per

MOS:SEAOFBLUE and give extra information to the reader.
I leave it to you - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I never thought of this problem of putting two wikilcnks together.

Tomorrow, I will go through and check them all and fix things.

DavidGries (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll check it and fix it.

DavidGries (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of programming language researchers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages APL and FL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks DavidGries (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the creation of Safety and liveness properties, DavidGries! It's definitely useful information and references. I wonder how you think it fits in with existing articles: "Safety property", "Liveness" and Linear time property. Rather than disjoint essays by individuals, Wikipedia is about accumulating knowledge from many different authors within a single article, and having a strongly connected network of links between related topics. I wonder whether all of the information you have added actually belongs within one of the three existing articles. Anything on safety alone belongs at "safety property", anything on liveness alone at "liveness" and the relationship between the two would maybe fit at linear time property.

We don't really need heavy duplication of information like the section "Informal account of safety and liveness": as long as there is a little bit of overview and appropriate links, readers can find the information they need from other articles. For instance, for the context of safety properties, a formal definition and the phrase "something bad will never happen" is probably enough. — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your talk. I agree about having fewer articles. The current "Safety property" is poorly written and is far from adequate. Second, I believe it is best to have ONE article that defines and describes both safety and liveness, rather than one that discusses 'safety' and another that discusses liveness, for the two are really complementary. This is done in another place with

total correctness redirect to Correctness. After Safety and liveness properties is finished, I could actually see removing "Safety property" and have it redirect to Safety and liveness properties. I would have to look at the "liveness" and Linear time property

to see what I would do with them.

This evening and tomorrow morning, I will edit Safety and liveness properties based on some comments I received from people. As I edit, I will take into account your remarks about "Informal account of safety and liveness". I'll get back to you after that.

DavidGries (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long talk, explaining why the new "Safety and liveness properties" belongs. I have had the help of people who know this area cold.

1. The current "safety" and "liveness" articles are misleading about the breadth of these ideas and omit rigorous definitions. They also say nothing about the ramifications of these definitions (ie that they form a complete and orthogonal basis and that they each are discharged with different kinds of proof obligations). So these articles need substantial revision.

To do those edits, we could split our safety and liveness article into two pieces, and replace the current articles with ours. But that 2-article packaging is less useful. (i) it does not make clear how the two defns relate or the interactive historical dance that got the field to this point. (ii) it would require repeating some things twice. So the better course seems to be replacing the current safety article and the current liveness article with pointers to this one single article.

2. Regarding the relationship to "linear-time property" page: This article is about *propositional* linear-time properties. The formalism cannot handle predicates about program states, so it cannot define a property like: "the current value of y determines the number of times that x toggles between 0 and 1 before termination". The formalism used in our "Safety and liveness properties" is more general and can handle this.

3. FORMALISMS. Any formalism for describing properties of individual executions will have a notion of safety properties and liveness properties. If the notation for defining properties is expressive enough, then there will be a theorem about decomposition of every property into a safety property (in the notation) and a liveness property (in the notation). We see that here in the "linear-time property" article. We also see that same narrative in the ""Input/output automaton" article -- though this is yet another formalism for expressing properties.

The new page we wrote, "Safety and liveness properties", subsumes any specific formalism for representing properties. Therefore, it conveys the notions of property, safety property, and liveness property in general. Our article also gives intuitive meanings and to points out some "stumbling block" properties (e.g. deadlock) that people often get wrong. Talking about such misconceptions is not appropriate for articles that are focusing on specific notations.

Should we consider cutting back in the Linear-time article and the I/O automaton article and have them refer to our new article for a safety and liveness discussion? I think that that would be a mistake, because each of those formalism-based articles translates the notions of safety and of liveness into the framework of their formalism and their underlying semantic model.

Still, it doe make sense to include pointers in those articles to our new one, e.g.: "For a discussion of safety properties and liveness properties in general, see xxx". I can do this later on.

DavidGries (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply and thought put into this. I agree with you that it does make sense to cover safety and liveness together at one article—the safety property article is very short and the liveness one spends much space contrasting liveness with safety. If

redirect those pages there.

The propositional/predicate distinction is one that I hadn't appreciated. I'm biased as I wrote linear time property, but I think it has enough information and scope to remain a separate article. It covers properties that are neither safety nor liveness. — Bilorv (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm the original author of the 'safety property' and 'liveness property' articles and I support these articles being merged into one. Thanks to David and team for expanding so thoughtfully (and streamlining) the original articles on these important topics! Peter Bailis (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article PL/C, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cornell University's student-oriented programming language dialect was made available to other universities but required a "research grant" payment in exchange? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/PL/C. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, PL/C), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 09:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000:

Thanks very much for letting me know about North8000's comment. It's good to know that what I did was done well enough to receive that comment.

DavidGries (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]