text:
Wikipedia:Village pump/February 2004 archive 2

Squids / Caching
The new server configuration with caches doesn't seem to work well with my Netscape 7.x browser -- I get the actual version of pages like Village Pump only if I explicitly de-cache reload them (Shift-Reload), not with a normal clicking on a link or on the reload button. That's not nice behavior and can lead to misunderstandings (e.g. seemingly missing answers or edits). -- till we *) 23:53, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I've been sitting here wondering why the Pump was so quiet for the same reason (I [too] use Mozilla, so could be software specific). Is there a header being sent wrong or something? - IMSoP 01:55, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm using Netscape 7.02 and having no problems. Elf 02:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I dual-boot linux and XP. I noticed that entries on Village pump which I can see in linux (Konqueror or Galeon) do not always show up in either IE or mozilla on XP, though I can go to an edit screen and see them there. (IMSoP notes that this comment was added by WormRunner 02:08, 15 Feb 2004)

 * Hmm, is Galeon Mozilla-based? (Follows own link to check, but finds nought but an stub) I suppose it might have different caching code. Just thinking that it doesn't seem very likely this would vary by OS, rather than by browser, is all. Would probably vary based on whether you were logged in though. And I've just remembered I'm behind a local squid of some sort, too [remembers somebody pointing out recently how many proxies lie between the average website and the average surfer] Ah! Too many variables! - IMSoP 02:26, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Can people please check if this problem is still current? It would help a huge amount if people experiencing the problem are able to diagnose it more clearly, including checking whether their DNS points to the 130.x or 207.x addresses and what cache headers they receive in the HTTP responses. I haven't been able to reproduce such problems so far. --Brion 03:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I haven't noticed it lately - perhaps it was just a settling down issue with the new servers. I didn't get round to looking into what the headers were because I couldn't (be bothered to) find a way of checking the response details for a logged-in request (sending a dummy GET on the command line would prove nothing, as there would be no cookies). - IMSoP 03:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm getting the problem right now this moment. Had it continually for several days on 2 machines, but that doesn't count for much since they use the same ISP & essentially same browser (Mozilla versions, this being 1.2.1 and other a newer version). Sorry, can't run the requested diagnostic data just now. Dandrake 07:55, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

We're sending headers that tell both other caches and browsers to check back for updates on every request. Cache administrators of downstream caches can however configure their caches to ignore some of these headers (especially Vary and Cache-Control) in order to get a higher 'hit ratio'. This violates the http standard, so it should be a reason to complain to your cache administrator, if you know who it is. The other reason i could think of would be a browser that's explicitly configured to check for updates only once per session. With Mozilla, you can check this (iirc) at Edit - Preferences - Advanced - Cache settings. -- Gabriel Wicke 18:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the info. What about the choice called "When the page is out of date"? I'd guess that that means it should request status for the page and compare against the date of what's in the cache; so it ought to work right in this context? Anyway, it's what my setting is and has been. Dandrake 18:24, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Your setting should be fine, so it's either some rude cache between you and wp or a hickup at wp. -- Gabriel Wicke 11:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gradually rewriting an article
There's an article (namely Scheme (mathematics), but that's unimportant) that I'd like to rewrite from scratch because I think I can do a better job than the present version. However, producing the new version is likely to take me a number of days, perhaps weeks. Is there some way to keep both versions easily accessible, so that people can view the old version (or choose to view the new one) while the new one is still work in progress?

I was thinking of creating the new version under a different name (something like "Scheme (mathematics) (rewrite)"), linking the new version near the top of the old version during the transition period, and, when the new version is finished, renaming both the old and new versions. Is this an acceptable policy? If not, how should I proceed?

I think this question should be mentioned somewhere in the FAQs (even if it's not actually frequently asked...), because I'm sure I'm not the only one to think "I can do better than this article", but not dare to undertake a major rewrite because having to do it all in a single edit is too hard. Any thoughts?

--Gro-Tsen 01:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * What will happen if when both versions are available is that each will get edits from all of us (not just from you on the new version). That may not be what you want to happen.   I'd advise to finish the new one, and then perhaps "evolve" the existing article to the new one (or else risk a quick reversion if the new one somehow lacks the material content of the older version).  Or, if someone reverts it, then consider a gradual conversion.  But I really don't think you'd be happy with two articles coexisting.  Good luck! Bevo 01:18, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The other problem will be that the renaming won't be as simple as you may think. My advice is to take a copy offline, noting exactly the timestamp on the version you have, and putting a comment into the talk page to say that a refactor is in progress to discourage major edits (which it will do, since most people are not interested in wasting their time... I said discourage, not prevent, and I said most, not all - bitter experience). Say what date you expect to complete it and update the comment if you're not finished by then. Then work on this copy offline. When you've finished, come back to the article, and check the history to see what has changed since you took your copy. See whether any of these changes need to be reflected in your new version, and make whatever changes to it are needed. Then paste your new version over the top of the old. It may be reverted, but it probably won't be if you've done a good job (I said probably). Cross that bridge when you come to it! This preserves the history and avoids renaming. Andrewa 02:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * One of the problems with writing everything offline is that I can't check, as I write it, how the article will appear when formatted (and since there could be a number of TeX formulae, this would be most useful). Also, it means that I can't conveniently ask some friends to help me with the refactoring.  So how about using the associated talk page to write the new version while it is still work in progress and, when it seems completed (and after checking that it contains all the info of the latest version of the page), copy-paste it to the article page itself.  Does that sound like an acceptable use of the talk page?  --Gro-Tsen 02:49, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Re testing appearance: remember that when editing a page there is a "Preview" button and a "Cancel" link. So, even if you have no intention of actually posting your work, it's possible to write your edits "live" in an edit page, previewing appearance repeatedly, then Select All in the text box, Paste into a text editor where you're keeping your work in progress, and Cancel. If you accidentally press Save instead, revert the page. I don't know that this is a good approach, but it is an approach. Dpbsmith 03:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The following was originally written before the above appeared, so may seem a little oddly worded, but it actually answers your question:
 * One tip that hasn't been touched on yet is that you can create sub-pages under your user-page, such as User:Gro-Tsen/sandbox or User:Gro-Tsen/Scheme (in fact, you can do it with talk-pages, too, so something like Talk:Scheme (mathematics)/temp would be valid if you preferred). Even if you don't tell people where you're doing it (for the reasons suggested by others above), it will allow you to test out the formatting, links and so on, and give you somewhere to keep track of your work-in-progress. Oh, and have you come across Template:inuse, which is designed for shorter rewrites, but I imagine you could steal the formatting for a comment on the talk page. - IMSoP 02:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought what they did at baseball worked quite well. There was a comment on the article to say it was undergoing a major rewrite at Talk:Baseball/temp/article and to please edit that with anything you wanted to add to the article.  When the rewriting got far enough along, it was encorparated into baseball.  That way it was a communal rewrite (and you could see how all the wiki links worked etc), and also allowed random people (like me) to find the new article and add edits to the correct place.  fabiform | talk 09:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The rewrite worked well, but I think it was not an optimal solution. One problem is that some users edited the original anyway (not a big problem, these changes were ported to the rewrite page). The other is that the history of that page is now split between the temp and the original page, as the rewrite was eventually moved by cut-and-paste. There is a way to merge the page histories, but I didn't do it for fear of totally messing up the page history. Kosebamse 10:10, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You may call it [Scheme (mathematics)/Yourname] and if you are really sure you have talent put notice about this on [Scheme (mathematics)], something like This article is being rewritten [here]. Then after you wrote the new version wait a bit and if nobody objects on Talk page rename it (so the history will be new). You may consider renaming before your article is finally done but then you should link to the old version.

There can be no automatic policy because there is no automatic way to decide whether you write better or not. As for me, I like your rewrite of 'Types of schemes' and I would appreciate your further work. There is still a lot of other articles to be written better: Coherent sheaf, Motive (mathematics); see more at Alexandre Grothendieck. ilya 20:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Safari Browser not allowed?
Why is Wikepedia not accessible from the Safari Browser? It's not a big deal, but am just curious.

?Pacific1982

 * I got the same thing for a while, though Safari is not listed as a blocked browser. After a bit, the error cleared itself and I have normal access now. Safari normally works. I guess it was just a glitch. Graham 22:24, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Safari is not certainly not blocked; it's my primary browser and I'd know... ;)

 * Can you please say approximately when you had a problem, if using another browser on the same machine wasn't blocked, if being logged in / not logged in had any affect, whether reloading had any affect, whether clearing cookies or cache had any affect, and which pages you tried to visit that were blocked? --Brion 23:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * For me, it was about an hour or so ago. I am set up to always be logged in (i.e. login cookie always enabled). Pages affected were the main page and my watchlist, which are my usual entry points. All I tried was quitting Safari and starting over, which didn't work. The fault cleared itself after a while. I didn't try resetting Safari or clearing cache, etc, since the fault didn't persist long. I don't have the debug menu set up, so presumably my Safari reports its user agent normally. Graham 23:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem seems to have gone away now. However, I got the message that I posted to wikitech-l for about 15 minutes at around 4:45 PM EST. The problem didn't happen in any other browser (at least not in IE 5.2, I didn't bother to check any Mozilla). The problem was definitely user-agent related, because when I activated (via the debug menu) a different user-agent, the problem immediately went away. Every page seemed to have the problem. I originally got the problem on my watchlist (usually the first page I load), but I tried loading the home page and I got the error. I tried quitting and restarting Safari and that didn't seem to have any effect. I was logged in at the time, but of course I couldn't try logging out because no pages were loading. I didn't try clearing cookies or cache, but based on the behavior I was experiencing, it seemed almost certainly to be a server problem. At the time, there were at least 2 other people in the IRC channel with the same problem.
 * --Nohat 23:42, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

 * I saw this float past in IRC (not sure what time it was). I think "gwicke" broke something briefly and then fixed it again.  :)  fabiform | talk 23:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * gwicke admitted on IRC that he'd "simplified" the list of blocked user agents in the Squid config - seems Safari's includes "WebKit", and triggered a false positive. Should be fixed now, I gather. - IMSoP 00:21, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised by how many Safaris are around... Sorry for the trouble! -- Gabriel Wicke 02:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I am a Safari user too. It's the best browser I ever had. True there is a quite significant number of Mac users in wikipedia. It doesn't feel just 2% market share, is it? -- Taku 16:43, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Market share is irrelevant. Installed base less so, and particular sites may attract certain kinds of users that do not reflect the population at large. Maybe Wikipedia appeals to the same people that Macs appeal to for some reason? In a recent Ars Technica survey, Safari came in at 38% of the total visitors to that site, the largest single group, with Windows version of Explorer at 31%. Graham 04:33, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I use Safari 1.0 (the last version to be compatible with OS X 10.2... haven't upgraded yet), and have never had any problems.Garrett Albright 04:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Heads up on "Ethnic Groups"
For anyone who may care, because I know this was a controversial project when we first launched a month ago, we now have an attempted template for writing about ethnic groups, nations (in the sense of peoples, not states), tribes, etc. It's further discussed at WikiProject Ethnic Groups, which also points to 5 examples of applying the template. Some of the articles that we've tried reworking this way were not so great to begin with, and of course applying a template doesn't solve all of their problems, but I, for one, think it is an improvement in every case. Comments eagerly solicited; my current plan is to until 15 Feb 04 for comments, then (barring unforeseen serious objections) supersede the 5 articles currently in the wikipedia (nothing significant is dropped, just added), and take the notice off of the template that warns that it is "only a draft." -- Jmabel 02:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Advice and opinion needed on place naming conventions
I'd be grateful for advice on an issue regarding place naming conventions in Kosovo (i.e. whether we follow international practice or one or the other practices of the rival national communities, which present POV problems). I've posted an appeal for advice on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) about a week ago but haven't had any responses yet. If anyone could offer some assistance, it would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO 10:49, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fix required: Talk page moved to article page
I erroneously moved Talk:World War II atrocities to World War II atrocities in Poland. Sorry for screwing up.

The folloiwng should be undone by an admin: Talk:World War II atrocities must be restored, and World War II atrocities in Poland/Talk:World War II atrocities in Poland deleted.

BTW, could it be a good idea to forbid such kind of page move? Mikkalai 21:17, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Vandalbot
We had a vandalbot attack today on meta. No big deal, just a couple of minutes worth of cleanup. But I wanted to make sure people know what to do when this happens. So I created a meta page on the subject, Vandalbot. -- Tim Starling 00:12, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Empty image links
Is there a reason why links to [[Media:Nosuchmedium]] don't appear red? See User:TUF-KAT/Samples of music from the United States -- not all of those clips have been uploaded yet, and I have no way of knowing whether or not the links are working. I've had to change a few in between when I made the list and the clips got uploaded (the program I used to convert from mp3 to ogg and select a clip couldn't handle accents in titles, for example), but I may have missed some and have no way to tell without clicking on each link. Tuf-Kat 05:23, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Map of Wikipedia?
Does anybody know of an attempt to "map" the Wikipedia similar to say:

http://research.lumeta.com/ches/map/

the Internet mapping project?

 * Hmmm, what I thought you meant was a map of Wikipedia as a navigational tool. Some libraries are doing this as a way to help people find information quickly and easily and as an alternative to the traditional catalogue search.  As Wikipedia grows and expands, this could be a very useful tool.  Anyone know anything about this? Exploding Boy 08:58, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

When will the images return?
As we all know: "Images uploaded between January 24 and January 28 are currently not available due to a hardware problem with one of the web servers. We should have the files recovered sooner or later, but feel free to re-upload anything you uploaded in that period to restore it immediately." When will this problem be over? -- user:zanimum

Afaik the server's hd is pretty broken, but should be physically accessible soon (Jason plans to get the old servers today). Attempts to recover the data should be much easier with physical access. -- Gabriel Wicke 23:58, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Questions
I wanted information about a pediatric nurse. I 'm going to a health career school but I'm not sure what a pediatric nurse does I want to do something that has to do with taking care of infants and toddlers in the hospitol's Could you please send me information on what type of nurse that it?

--> Reference desk

Project Gutenberg vs. Wikibooks
What is the relation between PG & WB (and other e-text projects)? (mutual copying, referncing, cooperation, etc.) BTW, it would be useful for the latter list to mention something about "access rules" for each listed digital library: using, copying, licensing. Mikkalai 23:37, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Wikisource:Wikisource and Project Gutenberg has some details on potential collaboration. Angela. 00:50, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * A lot of PG generated material is already in Wikipedia, especially a lot of articles imported from the 1911 encyclopedia. Although it's not a formal policy it's become fairly common for articles about authors/books to link to the PG version if on exists. --Imran 23:55, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Banning Plautus satire
Since policy decisions are all amok right now, I'd like clarification - I'm not sure if this is the place to talk about this though. User:Plautus satire needs to be banned. In the ~10 hours he's been here, he's made 3 good edits (his first 3), lots of bad ones, lots of reverts, started 3 edit wars, and gotten 3 out of the 4 pages he's "contributed" to protected. I would do it myself, but I'm involved in the conflicts. →Raul654 23:46, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * He has trolled with the same Columbia disaster subject on many other message boards, blanked his talk page rather than respond to concerns, removed other peoples' comments from Talk:Albert Einstein and is the same person as User:24.79.3.230 who contributed this little gem in January. I was going to block him myself but he stopped editing.  If he starts up again I will consider blocking him. silsor 00:13, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. But confining himself to talk pages for now, it seems. -- ChrisO 01:56, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * He's got nowhere else to go. All the pages he trolls have been protected. →Raul654 01:57, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hehe. That definately is something. --Ed Senft! 00:16, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * His edits on the Columbia article seem to be related to a fringe (can I say kooky?) theory doing the rounds that the shuttle was shot down by a lightning bolt or laser beam - the culprits are variously said to be the US Air Force, aliens or whoever might be using "scalar weapons", whatever those might be. I'd guess that he's either a troll or a kook. -- ChrisO 01:42, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Scaler weapons are weapons that have measurable magnitude but no direction. Velocity is a vector quantity because it has speed and direction. mass is a scaler quantity because it only has magnitude. --Ed Senft! 01:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is why I gave up maths years ago. :-) -- ChrisO 01:56, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Blocked. silsor 03:36, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Viewing source of old article revisions
--> Wikipedia talk:Page history

Bibliographic Citations
--> Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

The Sep 11 Terrorist pages
Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks seems to be protected. Who did it and why? Arno 07:07, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * From Protection log: 15:02, 12 Feb 2004 Ed Poor protected Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks →Raul654 07:14, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Turkeys and keels
I looked at Carinatae which still claims that the turkey has no carina. The last edit was on 8 Sep 2002 when I asked about it on the talk page. No one's answered. Does anyone know some examples of non-ratite birds which really have no carina? -phma 16:17, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik
I seem to be the subject of attacks by User:wik. He seems to be under the misconception that I am another Wikipedian and he vandalises my user page. I was under the impression that wik was under a ban, so I readded user:Jiang's link to the ban page of wik. I can usually stay away from these sort of detrimental activities on Wikipedia, but I seem to have been targetted. I think that this issue needs to be resolved immediately. user:Muriel Gottrop said two wrongs don't make a right in the edit summary on my userpage, but I wasn't aware that I did anything wrong. Thanks! --Ed Senft! 17:19, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Alex. How's your brother? --Wik 17:21, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Wik is a vandal, clear and simple. While he may make some real contributions, most of his edits are reverts, and he loves starting editing wars. Jor 17:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The Wik Study
 * Just to test Darkelf's theory, I did a quick rundown of Wik's edit history. Starting on Feb 12 (prior to his 24 ban), I counted the changes he made to articles (not talk or wikipedia: pages) between Feb 11 and Feb 12. I put them into 3 catagories: vandalism, reverts, and "useful". I counted 0 vandalisms, 20 reverts, and 48 useful contributions. So I think it's unfair to say that the majority of his edits are reverts. →Raul654 17:55, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Several of his "contributions" are removing added info and adding back his own edit, in essence a cloaked revert. Note also that some of those are marked a Minor Edits, in an effort to hide his vandalism. This statement based on checking each of his last 50 edits by page history comparing. Jor 17:59, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * All(when I looked) of his article edits since he has gotten back have been reverts. Why is he allowed to continue editing? --Ed Senft! 17:56, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with Raul here. I spent a bit of time today looking at every article that appeared in Wik's then-current User Contributions page. Just 50 items and far fewer pages, but that meant I could look at all of them in enough detail to see what each change meant. What they meant: Edit wars and edit wars, sometimes Poland vs Germany—I admit to a bias here: this nonsense annoys the bejabbers out of me—sometimes utter trivialities. Never, it appears, does he use the Talk pages to discuss any changes except in response to someone who has properly used Talk to make a rebuttal to one of this changes. And his positive changes? Copy editing. Good copy editing, often enough; but where are any substantive contributions? I didn't see them. Certainly nothing to balance the nonsense; nothing that would make a difference if he softly and suddenly vanished away; and I haven't even mentioned his wasting our time by tracking everything Anthony does to revert it. Phaugh. Dandrake 02:01, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Another thing I just noticed is Wik seems to be removing other user's comments from various wikipedia utilities such as Wikipedia:RFPP. . He is not only removing the comments, but getting into edit wars with the users whose comments he removes. --Ed Senft! 18:42, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't edit other people's user pages, simple as that. - snoyes 01:14, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * You might want to tell that to Silsor. --Ed Senft! 03:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I redirected the user page of a sock puppet to the person's best-known account. silsor 03:39, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

Squids / Caching
--> Village pump/February 2004 archive 2

See also links
What's the policy regarding "see also" or "related topics" links in articles? Some of them have literally dozens of links, some that seem only marginally related. For example, the article Homosexuality includes no less than 84 links to "related articles," including to frottage, oral sex and mutual masturbation, and that's in addition to the external links. Exploding Boy 00:29, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

discussion at --> Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text

GFDL requirements for a so-called "Title Page"?
Martin has pointed out that material licenced under the GNU FDL requires a statement on the "Title Page", raising issues on how to present content imported from Nupedia.

continued at Wikipedia talk:Nupedia and Wikipedia

FOLDOC license
spawned from above thread: The FOLDOC articles are more of a challenge [with regards GFDL], though. Martin 21:42, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Yikes, I hadn't realised that the FOLDOC import is technically under the FDL. Maybe we could contact Denis Howe again, and ask for an even more relaxed licence? - IMSoP 22:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * We'd probably just need to explain the situation to him - if he's fine with what we're doing (and I guess he is), then that's great. Martin 22:32, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://newshound.de.siu.edu/pulse/discuss/msgReader$19
I am trying to add this link to Hank Williams III and it doesn't want to work right. It makes my tooth hurt when it links to a Ja Rule article ;( Sam Spade 12:59, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Try escaping out the dollar sign, thus: http://newshound.de.siu.edu/pulse/discuss/msgReader%2419 --No-One Jones 13:12, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your brilliance :D Sam Spade 13:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, isn't that a bit worrying? It would seem like the escaping code in mediaWiki isn't working inside URLs, and thus the PHP engine is trying to interpret "19" as a variable. No harm in this case, but potentially... -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 13:33, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it's treating the dollar sign in the same way it treats space or comma. It's not a security risk. -- Tim Starling 13:41, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Pfew. Thanks Tim. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:17, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New pages and the watchlist
Is it possible to add New pages to a watchlist? Bevo 16:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. You can't watch special pages. Even if you could - newpages gets updated 2-10 times a minute. It would always be at the top of your list. →Raul654 16:59, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * How convenient that would be! Bevo 17:02, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you could put New pages on your watchlist, but it doesn't get changed very often! ;-) In fact, it's a very well-hidden redirect, since Special: pages don't seem to get the "Redirected from..." text. Is that a bug or a feature? - IMSoP 17:27, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Why not just link to it from your user page? Or, if you prefer, create a user subpage of it and similar links. Andrewa 22:56, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thumbnail size
--> Wikipedia talk:Extended image syntax

External links to subscription services
--> Wikipedia talk:External links

distracting Han character on logo
The Han character on the logo means 'ancestor'. It is very distracting. We should change it to something more appropriate. -- Kaihsu 20:37, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * This needs to be directed to Nohat, who has the keys to unraveling the 3D mystery. What would you suggest as the replacement? -戴&#30505sv 21:05, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * For example, 知, for 'knowledge' -- Kaihsu 22:41, 2004 Feb 15 (UTC)

At the time, Nohat admitted that he couldn't read Chinese character, so he chose one randomly, hoping it wouldn't be something unpleasant. --Menchi 01:04, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm just being curious here but why is "ancestor" bad to have? Dysprosia

 * I'm pretty sure every chracter on the logo represents the Wikipedia in some way. To pick an obvious example (to English speakers) the Roman Character is W, the first letter in Wikipedia -- UserGoogol 02:19, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * That's only partially true. As I'm not an omniglot, only the Japanese, Latin, and Cyrillic were selected to represent "Wikipedia". The rest were picked more for an eye of what would fit and look nice, with total obliviousness to the possible interpretation. If the Chinese character I selected had meant something really bad like "death" or "poison" then I'm sure someone would have complained during the logo creation process. I'm mildly pleased to learn that the character I selected means "ancestor"; I think it has a certain charm to it.

 * If you really want to see it changed, I would suggest creating a page on meta to collect ideas of which characters should be included, and if there is consensus I will make a new version of the logo. However, I'm willing to bet that most Wikipedians are not yet fully recovered from the Great Logo Affair of 2003, so I wouldn't recommend embarking on a major logo-modification campaign. You'd likely stir up much more trouble than you thought you were bargaining for. I'm hesitant to make small changes to the logo, as there are lots of variations that I'd rather not keep re-making for each minor change. The current batch took two whole days. --Nohat 03:47, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)

Layout of page footers
There's a dispute going on about how to format the footers that we are currently adding to pages such as those of countries. The dispute is between these two formats:
 * 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:East_Asia&oldid=2406134
 * 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:East_Asia&oldid=2406149

Where would a vote on a matter like this preferably take place? Thanks -- Timwi 22:49, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You could create a Wikiproject for geographic entries. (BTW, I much prefer the first: (a)it stands out so much better from all the rest of the standard generic wiki links (b)it looks more professional (c) takes up less spage but (d)like all tables it adds a level of complexity for accessibility, so be sure it has a SUMMARY attribute, like  summary="Navigation to other countries" ) Elf 17:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Damage to Cleanup
--> Wikipedia talk:Cleanup

Gradually rewriting an article
There's an article (namely Scheme (mathematics), but that's unimportant) that I'd like to rewrite from scratch because I think I can do a better job than the present version. However, producing the new version is likely to take me a number of days, perhaps weeks. Is there some way to keep both versions easily accessible, so that people can view the old version (or choose to view the new one) while the new one is still work in progress?

I was thinking of creating the new version under a different name (something like "Scheme (mathematics) (rewrite)"), linking the new version near the top of the old version during the transition period, and, when the new version is finished, renaming both the old and new versions. Is this an acceptable policy? If not, how should I proceed?

I think this question should be mentioned somewhere in the FAQs (even if it's not actually frequently asked...), because I'm sure I'm not the only one to think "I can do better than this article", but not dare to undertake a major rewrite because having to do it all in a single edit is too hard. Any thoughts?

--Gro-Tsen 01:05, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

discussion at --> Village pump/February 2004 archive 2

conflicting statements of fact
The article Aegyptus says: "In Greek mythology, Aegyptus, or Aigýptos ("supine goat") was the king of Egypt (which took its name from him)"

But the article List of country name etymologies says: "Egypt: "temple of the soul of Ptah"

Encyclopaedias should not give flatly contradictory statements about matters of fact. Does anyone care to arbitrate this question? Adam 01:44, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as contradictory. The once source says that that's the case according to Greek mythology, that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. RickK 04:47, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. What's contradictory about it? -- Wapcaplet 22:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've already risen this question at the talk page: Talk:List of country name etymologies. No reaction so far. The article gave me an impression of low credibility: kind of "housewife etymology". Mikkalai 23:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

where to find a book
-->Reference desk

Experimental Main Page
I'm playing with a new Main Page layout at Main Page/Test. I would like to invite feedback on the talk page. Please do not make any major changes to this experimental layout without prior discussion.

The idea is to split away the community stuff from the encyclopedia content (to a separate Main Page, to be created), and to have more information about the dynamically changed links (to make the Main Page more exciting and fun to read).

Note that I have only tested this in Moz so far so if anything looks broken in another browser, it probably is.—Eloquence 05:51, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

IP blocking also blocks logged in users?
IIRC it was once said that when an IP is blocked a registered user using the same IP can still log in. However this weekend I got an email that someone was locked out due to a previous IP block of a vandal - sadly I didn't check my email then so I could not unblock him quickly. Anonymous IP blocking shouldn't affect logged in users - as if a vandal uses a username that one can be blocked as well. So, do I remember that function wrongly, or did it change its working in the meantime? If my memory fails, then take this as a feature request :-) andy

 * It does. I have the personal experience of being blocked as logged in Menchi because some Anon-vandals (or my split personalities) share the same IP as I do. Three times today. --Menchi 10:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * IMO, there really should be a way for established users like yourself to edit while logged-in even though the IP address you are editing from is blocked. That would prevent vandals from circumventing a block just be creating a log-in... --mav 10:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * That's exactly what I meant - a login to an already existing user account should be possible from a blocked IP, however creating a new account shouldn't be possible, as that'd be a way to avoid the block. andy 11:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I actually think all user accounts, including newly-created ones, should work. A ban of an anon. user should only ban that IP as an anon. user, not any accounts from the same IP.  Now if one of the accounts is banned, then an IP-ban that auto-bans accounts sharing the same IP is okay, as currently implemented (subject perhaps to some exceptions for known-good accounts). --Delirium 12:04, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Edit Window Size
Since I've started using Wikipedia, I've had a problem with my edit window in that it changes its dimensions so that I can't see the right-hand edge with the scroll bar. If I only make an erasure, this doesn't happen, and the entire window remains visible onscreen. There are about 16 characters off the screen that I can't see, editting is a little tricky. I've adjusted my browser font size but that didn't have any effect. I use both Win2K and WinXP, and it occurs in both. Is this normal? --TimothyPilgrim 17:52, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems to be normal in IE. Check your Wiki user preferences and turn off "Edit box has full width." That fixed it for me.  (So does using Netscape on a Mac, WITH full width turned on ;-) .) Elf 17:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * That did it! Although, now it's like 20 characters short of the right edge of the screen, but it makes it much easier to edit. Thanks for the quick tip! --TimothyPilgrim 18:01, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I just changed the box width in the preferences from 80 to 95. That widened it up some. --TimothyPilgrim 18:04, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I had a similar problem when I tried using the edit toolbar on mozilla. If you are using that, try disabling it, and see if that makes a difference. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks, I've got it now (see above). --TimothyPilgrim 18:01, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Remove all sysops

 * Debate on whether to deprecate the term "sysop" in favor of "administrator" moved to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators... Fuzheado 02:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Opinions are encouraged in a "straw poll" on that page - IMSoP 16:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dashes redux
I have added a section to Manual of Style on when to use em and en dashes and what markup to use. I believe that this reflects correct typography. Previous discussion didn't appear to completely resolve the discussion, so I attempted to wrap it up with this entry. Please comment on its talk page rather than here.

Likewise I left only the discussion on dashes in bio dates in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) and I'm almost certain that that didn't end up with resolution because it diverged into talk about ems and ens in general. Would be nice to continue relevant (bio) discussion there and then adjust its meta page to reflect what we want people to do. Elf 21:57, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Very good Elf. Correct typography is what should be the goal here. It is amazing to me that there are those who would edit without such knowledge, but would then be abhored at the sight of a mispelled word. The two errors are the same - Marshman 00:56, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Did you mean abhorred? :-) And I'm pretty sure to "be abhorred" means to be detested; I would hope that a misspelled word would not cause me to be detested (unless of course I whined about it). Oh wait... -- Wapcaplet 17:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Admin participates in Edit war and protects page
The page History of Palestine has been subjected to an edit war. I added material from Benny Morris's book Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956. Zero0000 deleted the material. An edit war ensued. I called upon Zero000 to join us in discussion at the rather than continue the edit war. Instead, Zero0000, contacted Viajero. Viajero, editted the page, deleted, Benny Morris's statements and then protected the page. SO, the question is is it wikipedia policy to participates in Edit war and protects page

Please note that Zero0000 and Viajero have been tag-team deleting/reverting material as one can see from this quote from Zero0000 user page

 * your turn to revert OneVoice! -- Viajero 20:18, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo cautioned both of these two wikipedians: Zero0000 and Viajero regarding the tag-team deletions/reversions.

So what is the policy regarding these issues? OneVoice 23:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Editing a page and then protecting it is an abuse of admin powers, as is editing a page that is already protected. →Raul654 23:46, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia IPs
Why I cannot directly access Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects by IP? Ric 23:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Why do you want/need to? (In other words, I've no idea, but somebody has asked about this before, I believe.) - IMSoP 00:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi. My ISP's DNS Server has difficulty proccessing requests and is usually down. All my bookmarks store IP addresses and not domain names for this reason, but in Wikipedia I get some strange white pages when I attempt to access the server directly (i.e. bypassing the DNS service). Ric 00:12, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * We've got about 150 distinct wikis, identified by hostname. We don't have 150 distinct IP addresses in our subnet, so can't assign 150 separate IP addresses. You'll find this with a lot of sites, so it's not just us!

 * You really should switch ISPs if they can't keep DNS running; every internet service depends on it. If that's not an option for you, you might try editing your hosts file to hardcode lookups for sites you like and hoping they don't change. (This will vary by platform, so google up appropriate directions for your system.) --Brion 03:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rollback failure
I tried to rollback American Federation of Labor to a previous version, but no matter how many times I clicked the rollback link, the change never showed up on the history. I then went to the version in the history prior to the vandalism and tried to save that, and even put a comment saying what I was doing. It LOOKED as if my edit took, but the history still showed that nothing happened, and my comment and change never showed up on Recent Changes. I had to go into the version prior to the vandalism, actually make an edit to the page (not just save it without an edit), then save THAT, before I finally got the page back in place. RickK 00:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This might because after that anon was done there was no net change to the article. silsor 00:41, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

New barnst*****age
I replaced with, an updated and better-looking one. If it's not transparent it's because your web browser is broken and not standards compliant. silsor 00:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

 * Looks A LOT better. Not sure "broken" is the right word, but I catch your drift. Why not just replace the ugly one with this one, bad browsers beware. Given the purpose, the lack of transparency is not really a problem - Marshman 01:01, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * It is not transparent on MSIE. So here we go again. 90%-95% of internet users use MSIE. Can we postpone standards fetishism till at least half of these people have changed their habits, in other words indefinitely? Erik Zachte 04:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Works fine on MSIE for Mac. ;)

 * 8-bit transparent PNGs work fine in MSIE for Windows, though you don't get the smooth edges. It's a simple matter to fix in the Gimp if anyone cares to do it. --Brion 05:03, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)


text:
Deduction theorem

In mathematical logic, a deduction theorem is a metatheorem that justifies doing conditional proofs from a hypothesis in systems that do not explicitly axiomatize that hypothesis, i.e. to prove an implication A → B, it is sufficient to assume A as a hypothesis and then proceed to derive B. Deduction theorems exist for both propositional logic and first-order logic. The deduction theorem is an important tool in Hilbert-style deduction systems because it permits one to write more comprehensible and usually much shorter proofs than would be possible without it. In certain other formal proof systems the same conveniency is provided by an explicit inference rule; for example natural deduction calls it implication introduction.

In more detail, the propositional logic deduction theorem states that if a formula $$B$$ is deducible from a set of assumptions $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$ then the implication $$ A \to B $$ is deducible from $$\Delta $$; in symbols, $$\Delta \cup \{A\} \vdash B $$ implies $$\Delta \vdash A \to B $$. In the special case where $$\Delta $$ is the empty set, the deduction theorem claim can be more compactly written as: $$A \vdash B$$ implies $$\vdash A \to B$$. The deduction theorem for predicate logic is similar, but comes with some extra constraints (that would for example be satisfied if $$A$$ is a closed formula). In general a deduction theorem needs to take into account all logical details of the theory under consideration, so each logical system technically needs its own deduction theorem, although the differences are usually minor.

The deduction theorem holds for all first-order theories with the usual deductive systems for first-order logic. However, there are first-order systems in which new inference rules are added for which the deduction theorem fails. Most notably, the deduction theorem fails to hold in Birkhoff–von Neumann quantum logic, because the linear subspaces of a Hilbert space form a non-distributive lattice.

Examples of deduction

 * 1) "Prove" axiom 1: P→(Q→P)
 * P 1. hypothesis
 * Q 2. hypothesis
 * P 3. reiteration of 1
 * Q→P 4. deduction from 2 to 3
 * 1) *P→(Q→P) 5. deduction from 1 to 4 QED
 * 2) "Prove" axiom 2:
 * P→(Q→R) 1. hypothesis
 * P→Q 2. hypothesis
 * P 3. hypothesis
 * Q 4. modus ponens 3,2
 * Q→R 5. modus ponens 3,1
 * R 6. modus ponens 4,5
 * P→R 7. deduction from 3 to 6
 * (P→Q)→(P→R) 8. deduction from 2 to 7
 * 1) *(P→(Q→R))→((P→Q)→(P→R)) 9. deduction from 1 to 8 QED
 * 2) Using axiom 1 to show ((P→(Q→P))→R)→R:
 * (P→(Q→P))→R 1. hypothesis
 * P→(Q→P) 2. axiom 1
 * R 3. modus ponens 2,1
 * 1) *((P→(Q→P))→R)→R 4. deduction from 1 to 3 QED

Virtual rules of inference
From the examples, you can see that we have added three virtual (or extra and temporary) rules of inference to our normal axiomatic logic. These are "hypothesis", "reiteration", and "deduction". The normal rules of inference (i.e. "modus ponens" and the various axioms) remain available.

1. Hypothesis is a step where one adds an additional premise to those already available. So, if your previous step S was deduced as:
 * $$ E_1, E_2, ..., E_{n-1}, E_n \vdash S, $$

then one adds another premise H and gets:
 * $$ E_1, E_2, ..., E_{n-1}, E_n, H \vdash H. $$

This is symbolized by moving from the n-th level of indentation to the n+1-th level and saying
 * S previous step
 * H hypothesis

2. Reiteration is a step where one re-uses a previous step. In practice, this is only necessary when one wants to take a hypothesis that is not the most recent hypothesis and use it as the final step before a deduction step.

3. Deduction is a step where one removes the most recent hypothesis (still available) and prefixes it to the previous step. This is shown by unindenting one level as follows:
 * H hypothesis
 * ......... (other steps)
 * C (conclusion drawn from H)
 * H→C deduction

Conversion from proof using the deduction meta-theorem to axiomatic proof
In axiomatic versions of propositional logic, one usually has among the axiom schemas (where P, Q, and R are replaced by any propositions):
 * Axiom 1 is: P→(Q→P)
 * Axiom 2 is: (P→(Q→R))→((P→Q)→(P→R))
 * Modus ponens is: from P and P→Q infer Q

These axiom schemas are chosen to enable one to derive the deduction theorem from them easily. So it might seem that we are begging the question. However, they can be justified by checking that they are tautologies using truth tables and that modus ponens preserves truth.

From these axiom schemas one can quickly deduce the theorem schema P→P (reflexivity of implication), which is used below:
 * 1) (P→((Q→P)→P))→((P→(Q→P))→(P→P)) from axiom schema 2 with P, (Q→P), P
 * 2) P→((Q→P)→P) from axiom schema 1 with P, (Q→P)
 * 3) (P→(Q→P))→(P→P) from modus ponens applied to step 2 and step 1
 * 4) P→(Q→P) from axiom schema 1 with P, Q
 * 5) P→P from modus ponens applied to step 4 and step 3

Suppose that we have that Γ and H together prove C, and we wish to show that Γ proves H→C. For each step S in the deduction that is a premise in Γ (a reiteration step) or an axiom, we can apply modus ponens to the axiom 1, S→(H→S), to get H→S. If the step is H itself (a hypothesis step), we apply the theorem schema to get H→H. If the step is the result of applying modus ponens to A and A→S, we first make sure that these have been converted to H→A and H→(A→S) and then we take the axiom 2, (H→(A→S))→((H→A)→(H→S)), and apply modus ponens to get (H→A)→(H→S) and then again to get H→S. At the end of the proof we will have H→C as required, except that now it only depends on Γ, not on H. So the deduction step will disappear, consolidated into the previous step which was the conclusion derived from H.

To minimize the complexity of the resulting proof, some preprocessing should be done before the conversion. Any steps (other than the conclusion) that do not actually depend on H should be moved up before the hypothesis step and unindented one level. And any other unnecessary steps (which are not used to get the conclusion or can be bypassed), such as reiterations that are not the conclusion, should be eliminated.

During the conversion, it may be useful to put all the applications of modus ponens to axiom 1 at the beginning of the deduction (right after the H→H step).

When converting a modus ponens, if A is outside the scope of H, then it will be necessary to apply axiom 1, A→(H→A), and modus ponens to get H→A. Similarly, if A→S is outside the scope of H, apply axiom 1, (A→S)→(H→(A→S)), and modus ponens to get H→(A→S). It should not be necessary to do both of these, unless the modus ponens step is the conclusion, because if both are outside the scope, then the modus ponens should have been moved up before H and thus be outside the scope also.

Under the Curry–Howard correspondence, the above conversion process for the deduction meta-theorem is analogous to the conversion process from lambda calculus terms to terms of combinatory logic, where axiom 1 corresponds to the K combinator, and axiom 2 corresponds to the S combinator. Note that the I combinator corresponds to the theorem schema P→P.

Helpful theorems
If one intends to convert a complicated proof using the deduction theorem to a straight-line proof not using the deduction theorem, then it would probably be useful to prove these theorems once and for all at the beginning and then use them to help with the conversion:
 * $$A \to A$$

helps convert the hypothesis steps.
 * $$(B \to C) \to ((A \to B) \to (A \to C))$$

helps convert modus ponens when the major premise is not dependent on the hypothesis, replaces axiom 2 while avoiding a use of axiom 1.
 * $$(A \to (B \to C)) \to (B \to (A \to C))$$

helps convert modus ponens when the minor premise is not dependent on the hypothesis, replaces axiom 2 while avoiding a use of axiom 1.

These two theorems jointly can be used in lieu of axiom 2, although the converted proof would be more complicated:
 * $$(A \to B) \to ((B \to C) \to (A \to C))$$
 * $$(A \to (A \to C)) \to (A \to C)$$

Peirce's law is not a consequence of the deduction theorem, but it can be used with the deduction theorem to prove things that one might not otherwise be able to prove.
 * $$((A \to B) \to A) \to A$$

It can also be used to get the second of the two theorems, which can be used in lieu of axiom 2.

Proof of the deduction theorem
We prove the deduction theorem in a Hilbert-style deductive system of propositional calculus.

Let $$\Delta $$ be a set of formulas and $$A$$ and $$B$$ formulas, such that $$\Delta \cup \{A\} \vdash B $$. We want to prove that $$\Delta \vdash A \to B $$.

Since $$\Delta \cup \{A\} \vdash B $$, there is a proof of $$B$$ from $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$. We prove the theorem by induction on the proof length n; thus the induction hypothesis is that for any $$\Delta$$, $$A$$ and $$B$$ such that there is a proof of $$B$$ from $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$ of length up to n, $$\Delta \vdash A \to B $$ holds.

If n = 1 then $$B$$ is member of the set of formulas $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$. Thus either $$B=A$$, in which case $$A \to B $$ is simply $$A \to A $$, which is derivable by substitution from p → p, which is derivable from the axioms, and hence also $$\Delta \vdash A \to B $$, or $$B$$ is in $$\Delta$$, in which case $$\Delta \vdash B $$; it follows from axiom p → (q → p) with substitution that $$\Delta \vdash B \to (A \to B) $$ and hence by modus ponens that $$\Delta \vdash A \to B $$.

Now let us assume the induction hypothesis for proofs of length up to n, and let $$B$$ be a formula provable from $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$ with a proof of length n+1. Then there are two possibilities:

 * 1) $$B$$ is member of the set of formulas $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$; in this case we proceed as for n=1.
 * 2) $$B$$ is arrived at by using modus ponens. Then there is a formula C such that $$\Delta \cup \{A\}$$ proves $$C$$ and $$C \to B $$, and modus ponens is then used to prove $$B$$. The proofs of $$C$$ and $$C \to B $$ are with at most n steps, and by the induction hypothesis we have $$\Delta \vdash A \to C $$ and $$\Delta \vdash A \to (C \to B) $$. By the axiom (p → (q → r)) → ((p → q) → (p → r)) with substitution it follows that $$\Delta \vdash (A \to (C \to B)) \to ((A \to C) \to (A \to B))$$, and by using modus ponens twice we have $$\Delta \vdash A \to B $$.

Thus in all cases the theorem holds also for n+1, and by induction the deduction theorem is proven.

The deduction theorem in predicate logic
The deduction theorem is also valid in first-order logic in the following form:

 * If T is a theory and F, G are formulas with F closed, and $$T \cup \{ F \} \vdash G$$, then $$T \vdash F \rightarrow G$$.

Here, the symbol $$\vdash$$ means "is a syntactical consequence of." We indicate below how the proof of this deduction theorem differs from that of the deduction theorem in propositional calculus.

In the most common versions of the notion of formal proof, there are, in addition to the axiom schemes of propositional calculus (or the understanding that all tautologies of propositional calculus are to be taken as axiom schemes in their own right), quantifier axioms, and in addition to modus ponens, one additional rule of inference, known as the rule of generalization: "From K, infer ∀vK."

In order to convert a proof of G from T∪{F} to one of F→G from T, one deals with steps of the proof of G that are axioms or result from application of modus ponens in the same way as for proofs in propositional logic. Steps that result from application of the rule of generalization are dealt with via the following quantifier axiom (valid whenever the variable v is not free in formula H):

 * (∀v(H→K))→(H→∀vK).

Since in our case F is assumed to be closed, we can take H to be F. This axiom allows one to deduce F→∀vK from F→K and generalization, which is just what is needed whenever the rule of generalization is applied to some K in the proof of G.

In first-order logic, the restriction of that F be a closed formula can be relaxed given that the free variables in F has not been varied in the deduction of G from $$T \cup \{ F \}$$. In the case that a free variable v in F has been varied in the deduction, we write $$T \cup \{ F \} \vdash^v G$$ (the superscript in the turnstile indicating that v has been varied) and the corresponding form of the deduction theorem is $$T \vdash (\forall vF) \rightarrow G$$.

Example of conversion
To illustrate how one can convert a natural deduction to the axiomatic form of proof, we apply it to the tautology Q→((Q→R)→R). In practice, it is usually enough to know that we could do this. We normally use the natural-deductive form in place of the much longer axiomatic proof.

First, we write a proof using a natural-deduction like method:
 * Q 1. hypothesis
 * Q→R 2. hypothesis
 * R 3. modus ponens 1,2
 * (Q→R)→R 4. deduction from 2 to 3

 * Q→((Q→R)→R) 5. deduction from 1 to 4 QED

Second, we convert the inner deduction to an axiomatic proof:
 * (Q→R)→(Q→R) 1. theorem schema (A→A)
 * ((Q→R)→(Q→R))→(((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R)) 2. axiom 2
 * ((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R) 3. modus ponens 1,2
 * Q→((Q→R)→Q) 4. axiom 1
 * Q 5. hypothesis
 * (Q→R)→Q 6. modus ponens 5,4
 * (Q→R)→R 7. modus ponens 6,3
 * Q→((Q→R)→R) 8. deduction from 5 to 7 QED

Third, we convert the outer deduction to an axiomatic proof:
 * (Q→R)→(Q→R) 1. theorem schema (A→A)
 * ((Q→R)→(Q→R))→(((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R)) 2. axiom 2
 * ((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R) 3. modus ponens 1,2
 * Q→((Q→R)→Q) 4. axiom 1
 * [((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R)]→[Q→(((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R))] 5. axiom 1
 * Q→(((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R)) 6. modus ponens 3,5
 * [Q→(((Q→R)→Q)→((Q→R)→R))]→([Q→((Q→R)→Q)]→[Q→((Q→R)→R))]) 7. axiom 2
 * [Q→((Q→R)→Q)]→[Q→((Q→R)→R))] 8. modus ponens 6,7
 * Q→((Q→R)→R)) 9. modus ponens 4,8 QED

These three steps can be stated succinctly using the Curry–Howard correspondence:
 * first, in lambda calculus, the function f = λa. λb. b a has type q → (q → r) → r
 * second, by lambda elimination on b, f = λa. s i (k a)
 * third, by lambda elimination on a, f = s (k (s i)) k

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Deduction theorem


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 9

Question and Suggestion
My question: Any reason not to unprotect this page now?

Suggestion: Perhaps the "Requests and nominations for de-adminship" should be moved off on to another page, as that seems to be causing problems. Having this page protected from editing largely defeats the legitimate primary function.

Alternatively or additionally, perhaps we could have a seperate page along the lines of "Allegations of Sysop abuse"? -- Infrogmation 01:48, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Sysops aren't people, Admins are. IMO, "Allegations of Sysop/Adim abuse" would be just as bad as what "Conflicts between users" has become. I'm not sure what to do. --mav 01:52, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

I've unprotected the page, and cannot see why it was protected in the first place - Lir's complaint seems a perfectly valid one to me. Hephaestos does not have the authority to block signed in users except in cases of simple vandalism, which, as far as I can tell, this is not. Was the blocking reported anywhere at all (I don't see any discussion on Lir's talk page, and didn't see it mentioned on the mailing list). Incidentally, I do support the creation of Requests for de-adminship or similar to make this sort of stuff separate. --Camembert

 * It was protected due to an edit war (see the history). As I stated above, I think Lir's complaint against me is quite worthy of discussion.  I think Lir's complaint against 168 is not, however, and that is what started the edit war. - Hephaestos 02:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Is admin abuse so bas as to merit its own page? --mav 02:10, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Such a page would be a fun place for the trolls to hang out, anyway. - Hephaestos 02:12, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree with both Mav and Heph. Lir's and Wik's loud complaints aside, I really don't see much evidence of sysops abusing their powers. This page seems the perfect venue for airing such problems. →Raul654 02:20, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * IMO the question may not be if admin abuse is so bad, but rather if discussion/allegations of such are so bad as to diminish the functionality of the "Requests for adminship" page. I think that's already happening. -- Infrogmation 02:25, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * So the answer is to create a separate page where such baseless complaints can multiply? --mav

 * Multiply and be ignored, yes. Like the ban requests.  It seems the norm around here. - Hephaestos 02:30, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) - OK, I admit there was a reason to protect the page (and I admit, I didn't realise it was the 168 stuff - which does seem more trivial - which got it started), but I hope it's OK that I've unprotected it now. I'd ask the people who were removing Lir's complaints not to do so - you might disagree with Lir (I do myself in many ways), but the complaints aren't entirely ridiculous, and there's no reason to not allow them to be aired. Removing them might give the impression that we admins are so arrogant that we cannot possibly conceive of one of our number ever doing anyting wrong (yes, I know that's not how we feel, but perceptions matter if we're to be respected). Let the argument run its course, then remove them. In any case, having an edit war over it is pretty counter-productive.

I think a separate page for admin abuse would be a good thing not because admin abuse is particularly common or anything like that, but because if we're going to have edit wars over it such as this one, they shouldn't interfere with legitimate discussions about the creation of admins. Also, I think that this page ought to be such a nice place where people can say lovely things about each other and give one another a leg-up. I know it sounds wet, but all this vitriol is rather unpleasant and better sectioned off, IMO. --Camembert 02:31, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * The complaints were aired, Camembert. Possibly they should have been allowed to remain for a little longer before being removed to make room for more substantive matters, possibly not. Your general thrust is something I entirely agree with. However, these particular circumstances are a little different: Lir was not bringing a particular specific complaint about a particular specific administrator, Lir was casting wholesale complaints about every admin he had managed to cross swords with. The intention was clear: if you disagree with Lir about an article, Lir will attempt to get your sysop rights removed. If there was a genuine complaint, as opposed to a concerted campaign that amounted to complaining about everyone, it would be a different matter. In this case, however, it is a simple matter of Lir throwing mud in every direction, hoping that enough of it will stick, and that he will thus be a little freer to rampage through the Wikipedia, overriding any and all other community members with his customary gleeful edit wars. You can stop it now or you can stop it later. It's a whole lot easier, and less disruptive, to stop it now. Tannin 02:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * PS: your second para about not liking vitrol on this page, Camembert. Yes, I agree entirely. I am inclined to think that restricting this page to genuine complaints (which are few and far between) is the better way to do it, but I am open to persuasion on that. Tannin 02:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * In my opinion, Lir's complaint about Hephaestos banning him was a genuine one (and at the very least, it was a specific one against a specific admin) - admins shouldn't ban signed in users unless it's a case of simple vandalism. Of course, I wouldn't want to paint Lir whiter than snow - he has his foibles, let's say - and I'm sure Heph acted with good intentions, but this wasn't a clear-cut case of simple vandalism. There might be a case for banning Lir (I really don't know), but one admin making a snap decision to do so isn't on.

 * I suppose part of the problem in removing complaints is that we don't have any procedure in place for desysopping people or any guidelines on what might constitute an action so bad that it would result in desysopping. This makes it difficult to say when an argument can really be said to have run its course and be deleted from the page with confidence. Anyway, I'm not going to say more about this - it's not a very fun subject :) Apologies for rambling on so. --Camembert 03:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

wow, I must say its rather horrifying to see you all discussing your own lack of over sight in such a cavalier manner. This does not bode well. "Genuine complaints" appears to be defined as those complaints which some unknown number of admins agrees with. The rabble such as myself clearly have no place here, our complaints are speedilly removed to our user pages, and the problem left to fester. Jack 02:51, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Quite right. We should not leave problems to fester. Instead, we should be much more proactive in dealing with our problem users, instead of letting them troll on forever. Tannin 02:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. I suggest you impliment a plan of harassment and intimidation of all who question your authority. The name for all who defy you is "Troll"! Seek out areas where these poor fools are attempting to utilize dubious resources and statistics (like the CIA world factbook) or in otherways divert from the "official wikipedia POV" of brutal nihilism. If they won't immediately cower before your superiority, bring in a squad of likeminded admins. Rearrange CbU in shocking and bizarre ways, carefully cutting and pasting passages so as to maximize their shame and insult. If that doesn't work, you can always unilaterally ban them. Just don't let Jimbo know about any of this! I hear he grows soft and weak in his later years, even mumbling about "welcoming new editors" and "inclusionism".... Jack 03:17, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Trying to summarize the discussion:
 * 1) The requests for adminship bit of the page is agreed to be a useful and successful utility page.
 * 2) The requests for de-adminship bit had been less so.
 * Matter arising: Should the page be spilt. Two opinions:
 * Yes) They are separate concerns.
 * No) It would create another page for trolls.

In my view, the balance of opinon was to create a new page. Thus please take a look at Possible misuses of admin privileges. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Mark and Lard

Is this a publicity release? Wetman 10:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Mark & Lard are legends. Colin & Edith are 2 usless peices of crap who shouldn't even be on Radio 1.

 * Why did they leave Radio 1? Did they jump or were they pushed? I have heard Radcliffe say it was fair enough they were asked to leave (that they had run their course), but what did Lard think? Anyone know?

I think it was a mix of being pushed and them thinking they were too old for Radio 1. They seem to dodge the issue when they get asked.

White Town's success was due to Simon Mayo, not Mark & Lard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.184.149 (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Games on the breakfast show
During their brief, glorious stint on R1's breakfast show M & L had a game called "We Love Us", where members of various groups competed with each other in answering questions about their own records. The results were often hilairious. Groups that participated included Suede, Dodgy, Super Furry Animals, Manic Street Preachers and (I think) Supergrass. Hearing various indie-rockers trying to function at 8.50 in the morning was very amusing.

There was also "Bird or Bloke". Callers would be given a series of names of real people (called things like Chris and Leslie) and asked to identify them as male or female.

"Worm of the Week" was M & L's "Single of the Week" on the breakfast show. The first "Worm of the Week" was "North Country Boy" by the Charlatans.

Immediately after announcing that M & L were being kicked off the breakfast slot, Radcliffe played the contemporary hit "Nothing Ever Lasts Forever" by Echo & the Bunnymen.

Catchphrases... slam dunkin'!
Lard went through a period of saying "Oooh, my life!" a lot.

Following a ridiculous trail for the chart show by Mark Goodier in which he talked about some record having "sensAAAtionally slam-dunked into the top three", M & L registered their amused contempt for such mid-Atlantic drivel by using the phrase "SensAAAAAAtionally slam-dunked" in their countdown of the Topical Triple Tracker (three records chosen for their relevance to a trivial news story). This catchphrase lasted a couple of years at least.

Sugababes
It was "Overload". I remember it well. Ish. 86.139.29.145 21:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Mike

Last song
was it Crazy Crazy Nights by Kiss ??? Pickle 17:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yuss. Juux 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juux (talk • contribs)

Names of some late night show comedy sketches?
It would be great to see these. And hear them again! Especially … was it "Bill and Ben, snooker men?" 😉

Also, in the afternoon show, what was the name of that spoof where dysfunctional family members argued and ended up fighting? (Can’t even remember what was being spoofed!)  Boscaswell   talk  04:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mark and Lard


text:
Alexander Herzen

Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (Алекса́ндр Ива́нович Ге́рцен; 6 April 1812 – 21 January 1870) was a Russian writer and thinker known as the precursor of Russian socialism and one of the main precursors of agrarian populism (being an ideological ancestor of the Narodniki, Socialist-Revolutionaries, Trudoviks and the agrarian American Populist Party). With his writings, many composed while exiled in London, he attempted to influence the situation in Russia, contributing to a political climate that led to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. He published the important social novel Who is to Blame? (1845–46). His autobiography, My Past and Thoughts (written 1852–1870), is often considered one of the best examples of that genre in Russian literature.

Life

Herzen (or Gertsen) was an illegitimate son of a rich Russian landowner, Ivan Yakovlev, and Henriette Wilhelmina Luisa Haag from Stuttgart. Yakovlev gave his son the surname Herzen because he was a "child of his heart" (German Herz).

He was first cousin to Count Sergei Lvovich Levitsky, considered the patriarch of Russian photography and one of Europe's most important early photographic pioneers, inventors and innovators. In 1860, Levitsky would immortalize Herzen in a famous photograph.

Herzen was born in Moscow, shortly before Napoleon's invasion of Russia and brief occupation of the city. His father, after a personal interview with Napoleon, was allowed to leave Moscow after agreeing to bear a letter from the French to the Russian emperor in St. Petersburg. His family accompanied him to the Russian lines.

A year later, the family returned to Moscow and stayed there until after Herzen had completed his studies at Moscow University. In 1834, Herzen and his lifelong friend Nikolay Ogarev were arrested and tried for attending a festival where verses by Sokolovsky, that were uncomplimentary to the tsar, were sung. He was found guilty, and in 1835 banished to Vyatka, now Kirov, in north-eastern European Russia. He remained there until 1837, when the tsar's son, Grand Duke Alexander (who later became become tsar Alexander II), accompanied by the poet Zhukovsky, visited the city and intervened on his behalf. Herzen was allowed to leave Vyatka for Vladimir, where he was appointed editor of the city's official gazette. In 1837, he eloped with his cousin Natalya Zakharina, secretly marrying her.

In 1839 he was set free and returned to Moscow in 1840, where he met literary critic Vissarion Belinsky, who was strongly influenced by him. Upon arrival, he was appointed as secretary to Count Alexander Stroganov in the ministry of the interior at St Petersburg; but due to complaining about a death caused by a police officer, was sent to Novgorod where he was a state councillor until 1842. In 1846, his father died, leaving him a large inheritance.

In 1847, Alexandr emigrated with his wife, mother and children, to Italy never to return to Russia. From Italy, on hearing of the revolution of 1848, he hastened to Paris and then to Switzerland. He supported the revolutions of 1848, but was bitterly disillusioned with European socialist movements after their failure. Herzen gained his reputation as a political writer. His assets in Russia were frozen due to his emigration, but Baron Rothschild, with whom his family had a business relationship, negotiated the release of the assets, which were nominally transferred to Rothschild.

Alexandr and his wife Natalia had four children together. His mother and one of his sons died in a shipwreck in 1851. His wife carried on an affair with the German poet Georg Herwegh. In 1852 Natalia died from tuberculosis and Alexandr left Geneva for London, where he settled for many years. He hired Malwida von Meysenbug to educate his daughters. With the publications of his Free Russian Press, which he founded in London in 1853, he tried to influence the situation in Russia and improve the situation of the Russian peasantry he idolized.

In 1856 he was joined in London by his old friend Nikolay Ogarev. They worked together on their Russian periodical Kolokol ("Bell"). Soon Alexandr began an affair with Natalia Tuchkova, Ogarev's wife, daughter of the war hero general Tuchkov. Tuchkova and Alexandr had three children. Ogarev found a new wife and the friendship between Herzen and Ogarev survived.

Herzen spent time in London organising with the International Workingmen's Association, becoming well acquainted with revolutionary circles including the likes of Bakunin and Marx. It was during his time in London that Herzen began to make a name for himself for "scandal-mongering" when he told Bakunin, freshly arriving after having escaped imprisonment in Siberia, that Marx had accused him of being a Russian agent; in reality, the two were on very good terms.

In 1864, Herzen returned to Geneva and, after some time, went to Paris where he died in 1870 of tuberculosis complications. Originally buried in Paris, his remains were taken to Nice a month later.

Political positions
Herzen promoted the ideas of Westernizer Vissarion Belinsky after his death in 1848. He was influenced by Voltaire, Schiller, Saint-Simon, Proudhon, and especially Hegel and Feuerbach. Herzen started as a liberal but increasingly adopted socialism. He left Russia permanently in 1847, but his newsletter Kolokol  published in London from 1857 to 1867, was widely read. Herzen combined key ideas of the French Revolution and German idealism. He disliked bourgeois or middle-class values, and sought authenticity among the peasantry. He fought for the emancipation of the Russian serfs, and after that took place in 1861 he escalated his demands regarding constitutional rights, common ownership of land, and government by the people.

Herzen was disillusioned with the Revolutions of 1848 but not disillusioned with revolutionary thought. He became critical of those 1848 revolutionaries who were "so revolted by the Reaction after 1848, so exasperated by everything European, that they hastened on to Kansas or California". Herzen had always admired the French Revolution and broadly adopted its values. In his early writings, he viewed the French Revolution as the end of history, the final stage in social development of a society based on humanism and harmony. Throughout his early life, Herzen saw himself as a revolutionary radical called to fight the political oppression of Nicholas I of Russia. Essentially, Herzen fought against the ruling elites in Europe, against Christian hypocrisy and for individual freedom and self-expression.

He promoted both socialism and individualism and argued that the full flowering of the individual could best be realized in a socialist order. However, he would always reject grand narratives such as a predestined position for a society to arrive at and his writings in exile promoted small-scale communal living with the protection of individual liberty by a non-interventionist government.

Writings
His literary career began in 1842 with the publication of an essay, in Russian, on Dilettantism in Science, under the pseudonym of Iskander, the Turkish form of his Christian name. His second work, also in Russian, was his Letters on the Study of Nature (1845–46). In 1847 appeared his novel Who is to Blame? This is a story about how the domestic happiness of a young tutor, who marries the unacknowledged daughter of a Russian sensualist of the old type, dull, ignorant and genial, is troubled by a Russian sensualist of the new school, intelligent, accomplished, and callous, with there being no possibility of saying who is most to blame for the tragic ending.

Also in 1847 were published in Russian periodicals the stories which were afterwards collected and printed in London in 1854, under the title of Prervannye Razskazy (Interrupted Tales). In 1850 two works appeared, translated from the Russian manuscripts, From Another Shore and Lettres de France et d'Italie. In French also appeared his essay Du Developpement des idées revolutionnaires en Russie, and his Memoirs, which, after being printed in Russian, were translated under the title of Le Monde russe et la Révolution (3 vols., 1860–1862), and were in part translated into English as My Exile to Siberia (2 vols., 1855).

Works

 * Legend (Легенда, 1836)
 * Elena (Елена, 1838)
 * Notes of a Young Man (1840)
 * Diletantism in Science (1843)
 * Who is to Blame? (Кто виноват?, 1846)
 * Mimoezdom (Мимоездом, 1846)
 * Dr. Krupov (Доктор Крупов, 1847)
 * Thieving Magpie (novel) (Сорока-воровка, 1848)
 * The Russian People and Socialism (Русский народ и социализм, 1848)
 * From the Other Shore (1848–1850)
 * Letters from France and Italy (1852)
 * Selected Philosophical Works 1956
 * My Past and Thoughts: The Memoirs of Alexander Herzen

Free Russian Press

Having founded in London in 1853 his Free Russian Press, the fortunes of which he gave an interesting account in a book published (in Russian) in 1863, he published a large number of Russian works, all against the system of government prevailing in Russia. Some of these were essays, such as his Baptized Property (1853), an attack on serfdom; others were periodical publications, the Polyarnaya Zvyezda (or Polar Star), the Kolokol (or Bell), and the Golosa iz Rossii (or Voices from Russia).

As the first independent Russian political publisher, Herzen began publishing The Polar Star, a review which appeared infrequently and was later joined by The Bell, a journal issued between 1857 and 1867 at Herzen's personal expense. Both publications acquired great influence via an illegal circulation in Russian territory; it was said the Emperor himself read them. Both publications gave Herzen influence in Russia reporting from a liberal perspective about the incompetence of the Tsar and the Russian bureaucracy.

For its first three years, the Russian Free Press went on printing without selling a single copy and scarcely able to get a single copy into Russia; so when at last a bookseller bought 10 shillings worth of Baptized Property, the half-sovereign was set aside by the surprised editors in a special place of honor. The death of emperor Nicholas in 1855 led to a complete change. Herzen's writings, and the magazines he edited, were smuggled wholesale into Russia, and their words resounded throughout the country, and all over Europe. Their influence grew.

The year 1855 gave Herzen reason to be optimistic; Alexander II had ascended the throne and reforms seemed possible. Herzen urged the Tsarist regime 'Onward, onward' towards reform in The Polar Star in 1856. Writing in 1857 Herzen became excited by the possibility of social change under Alexander II, "A new life is unmistakably boiling up in Russia, even the government is being carried away by it". The Bell broke the story that the government was considering serf emancipation in July 1857, adding that the government lacked the ability to resolve the issue. Yet by 1858, full serf emancipation had not been achieved and Herzen grew impatient with reform. By May 1858 The Bell restarted its campaign for the comprehensive emancipation of the serfs. Once the Emancipation reform of 1861 in Russia was achieved, The Bell's campaign changed to 'Liberty and Land', a program that tried to achieve further social change in support of serf rights. Alexander II granted serfs their freedom, the law courts were remodelled, trial by jury was established, and liberty was, to a great extent, conceded to the press.

Contemporary reputation

Herzen drew criticism from both liberals who opposed violence and from radicals who thought Herzen was too soft. Liberals led by Boris Chicherin and Konstantin Kavelin believed individual freedom would be achieved through the rationalisation of social relations. Their statist variety of liberalism was opposed by Herzen as it supposed that Russian society would evolve to an ideal state based on a Hegelian view of reason. They believed the revolutionaries would merely postpone the establishment of the ideal state, while Herzen thought that, on the contrary, they were blind to historical reality.

Russian radicals disliked Herzen as too moderate. Radicals such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky and Nikolay Dobrolyubov wanted more commitment to violent revolution and the withdrawal of any hope in the reformist Tsar. Radicals asked Herzen to use The Bell as a mouthpiece for violent radical revolution, but Herzen rejected these requests. He argued that the Russian Radicals were not united and strong enough to create successful political change, stating, "You want happiness, I suppose? I dare say you do! Happiness has to be conquered. If you are strong, take it. If you are weak, hold your tongue". Herzen feared a new revolutionary government would merely replace the dictatorship with another dictatorship.

The radicals describe Herzen as a liberal for not wanting immediate change, but Herzen rejects their pleas arguing for change at a pace that will ensure success. Herzen briefly joined with other Russian liberals such as Kavelin to promote the peasant 'awakening' in Russia. Herzen continued to use The Bell as an outlet to promote unity with all sections of the Russian society behind a demand for a national parliament.

However his hopes of acting as a uniting force were ended by the January Uprising of 1863/1864, when the liberal support for Tsarist revenge against the Poles ended Herzen's link with them; Herzen had pleaded the insurgents' cause. This breach resulted in a declining readership for The Bell, which ceased publication in 1867. By his death in 1870, Herzen was almost forgotten.

Influence in the 19th and 20th century
Herzen opposed the aristocracy that ruled 19th century Russia and supported an agrarian collectivist model of social structure. A rise in populism by 1880 led to a favourable re-evaluation of his writings. In Russia the distinctly western notion of "progress" was replaced by a conservative promise of modernization based on the incorporation of modern technology to serve the established system. The promise of modernization in the service of autocracy frightened Herzen who warned of a Russia governed by "Genghis Khan with a telegraph."

Alongside populism, Herzen is also remembered for his rejection of corrupt government of any political persuasion and for his support for individual rights. A Hegelian in his youth, this translated into no specific theory or single doctrine dominating his thought. Herzen came to believe the complex questions of society could not be answered and that Russians must live for the moment and not a cause, essentially life is an end in itself. Herzen found greater understanding by not committing himself to an extreme but rather lived impartially enabling him to equally criticise competing ideologies. Herzen believed that grand doctrines ultimately result in enslavement, sacrifice and tyranny.

Tolstoy declared that he had never met another man "with so rare a combination of scintillating brilliance and depth". Herzen was a hero of the 20th-century philosopher Isaiah Berlin. The words of Herzen that Berlin repeated most insistently were those condemning the sacrifice of human beings on the altar of abstractions, the subordination of the realities of individual happiness or unhappiness in the present to glorious dreams of the future. Berlin, like Herzen, believed that "the end of life is life itself" and that each life and each age should be regarded as its own end and not as a means to some future goal. Berlin called Herzen's autobiography "one of the great monuments to Russian literary and psychological genius, worthy to stand beside the great novels of ... Turgenev and Tolstoy."

Russian Thinkers (The Hogarth Press, 1978), a collection of Berlin's essays in which Herzen features, was the inspiration for Tom Stoppard's The Coast of Utopia, a trilogy of plays performed at London's National Theatre in 2002 and at New York's Lincoln Center in 2006–2007. Set against the background of the early development of Russian socialist thought, the Revolutions of 1848 and later exile, the plays examine the lives and intellectual development of, among other Russians, the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, the literary critic Vissarion Belinsky, the novelist Ivan Turgenev and Herzen, whose character dominates the plays.

Trivia
Herzen is the lead character in Tom Stoppard's 2002 trilogy of plays The Coast of Utopia.

title: Alexander Herzen


text:
Traffic analysis

Traffic analysis is the process of intercepting and examining messages in order to deduce information from patterns in communication. It can be performed even when the messages are encrypted. In general, the greater the number of messages observed, the greater information be inferred. Traffic analysis can be performed in the context of military intelligence, counter-intelligence, or pattern-of-life analysis, and is also a concern in computer security.

Traffic analysis tasks may be supported by dedicated computer software programs. Advanced traffic analysis techniques which may include various forms of social network analysis.

Traffic analysis has historically been a vital technique in cryptanalysis, especially when the attempted crack depends on successfully seeding a known-plaintext attack, which often requires an inspired guess based on how specific the operational context might likely influence what an adversary communicates, which may be sufficient to establish a short crib.

Breaking the anonymity of networks
Traffic analysis method can be used to break the anonymity of anonymous networks, e.g., TORs. There are two methods of traffic-analysis attack, passive and active.

 * In passive traffic-analysis method, the attacker extracts features from the traffic of a specific flow on one side of the network and looks for those features on the other side of the network.
 * In active traffic-analysis method, the attacker alters the timings of the packets of a flow according to a specific pattern and looks for that pattern on the other side of the network; therefore, the attacker can link the flows in one side to the other side of the network and break the anonymity of it. It is shown, although timing noise is added to the packets, there are active traffic analysis methods robust against such a noise.

In military intelligence
In a military context, traffic analysis is a basic part of signals intelligence, and can be a source of information about the intentions and actions of the target. Representative patterns include:

 * Frequent communications – can denote planning
 * Rapid, short communications – can denote negotiations
 * A lack of communication – can indicate a lack of activity, or completion of a finalized plan
 * Frequent communication to specific stations from a central station – can highlight the chain of command
 * Who talks to whom – can indicate which stations are 'in charge' or the 'control station' of a particular network. This further implies something about the personnel associated with each station
 * Who talks when – can indicate which stations are active in connection with events, which implies something about the information being passed and perhaps something about the personnel/access of those associated with some stations
 * Who changes from station to station, or medium to medium – can indicate movement, fear of interception

There is a close relationship between traffic analysis and cryptanalysis (commonly called codebreaking). Callsigns and addresses are frequently encrypted, requiring assistance in identifying them. Traffic volume can often be a sign of an addressee's importance, giving hints to pending objectives or movements to cryptanalysts.

Traffic flow security
Traffic-flow security is the use of measures that conceal the presence and properties of valid messages on a network to prevent traffic analysis. This can be done by operational procedures or by the protection resulting from features inherent in some cryptographic equipment. Techniques used include:

 * changing radio callsigns frequently
 * encryption of a message's sending and receiving addresses (codress messages)
 * causing the circuit to appear busy at all times or much of the time by sending dummy traffic
 * sending a continuous encrypted signal, whether or not traffic is being transmitted. This is also called masking or link encryption.

Traffic-flow security is one aspect of communications security.

COMINT metadata analysis
The Communications' Metadata Intelligence, or COMINT metadata is a term in communications intelligence (COMINT) referring to the concept of producing intelligence by analyzing only the technical metadata, hence, is a great practical example for traffic analysis in intelligence.

While traditionally information gathering in COMINT is derived from intercepting transmissions, tapping the target's communications and monitoring the content of conversations, the metadata intelligence is not based on content but on technical communicational data.

Non-content COMINT is usually used to deduce information about the user of a certain transmitter, such as locations, contacts, activity volume, routine and its exceptions.

Examples
For example, if an emitter is known as the radio transmitter of a certain unit, and by using direction finding (DF) tools, the position of the emitter is locatable, the change of locations from one point to another can be deduced, without listening to any orders or reports. If one unit reports back to a command on a certain pattern, and another unit reports on the same pattern to the same command, the two units are probably related. That conclusion is based on the metadata of the two units' transmissions, not on the content of their transmissions.

Using all or as much of the metadata available is commonly used to build up an Electronic Order of Battle (EOB) by mapping different entities in the battlefield and their connections. Of course, the EOB could be built by tapping all the conversations and trying to understand, which unit is where, but using the metadata with an automatic analysis tool enables a much faster and accurate EOB build-up, which, alongside tapping, builds a much better and complete picture.

World War I

 * British analysts during World War I noticed that the call sign of German Vice Admiral Reinhard Scheer, commanding the hostile fleet, had been transferred to a land station. Admiral of the Fleet Beatty, ignorant of Scheer's practice of changing call signs upon leaving harbour, dismissed its importance and disregarded Room 40 analysts' attempts to make the point. The German fleet sortied, and the British were late in meeting them at the Battle of Jutland. If traffic analysis had been taken more seriously, the British might have done better than a "draw".
 * French military intelligence, shaped by Auguste Kerckhoffs's legacy, had erected a network of intercept stations at the Western Front in pre-war times. When the Germans crossed the frontier, the French worked out crude means for direction-finding based on intercepted signal intensity. The recording of call signs and of traffic volumes further enabled the French to identify German combat groups and to distinguish fast-moving cavalry from slower infantry.

World War II

 * In the early part of World War II, the aircraft carrier HMS Glorious was evacuating pilots and planes from Norway. Traffic analysis produced indications GERMAN BATTLESHIP Scharnhorst and GERMAN BATTLESHIP Gneisenau were moving into the North Sea, but the Admiralty dismissed the report as unproven. The captain of Glorious did not keep sufficient lookout and was subsequently surprised and sunk. Harry Hinsley, the young Bletchley Park liaison to the Admiralty, later said that his reports from the traffic analysts were taken much more seriously thereafter.
 * During the planning and rehearsal for the attack on Pearl Harbor, very little traffic was passed by radio, subject to interception. The ships, units, and commands involved were all in Japan and in touch by phone, courier, signal lamp, or even flag. None of that traffic was intercepted, and could not be analyzed.
 * The espionage effort against Pearl Harbor before December did not send an unusual number of messages; Japanese vessels regularly called in Hawaii and messages were carried aboard by consular personnel. At least one such vessel carried some Japanese Navy Intelligence officers. Such messages could not be analyzed. It has been suggested, however, the volume of diplomatic traffic to and from certain consular stations might have indicated places of interest to Japan, which might thus have suggested locations to concentrate traffic analysis and decryption efforts.
 * Admiral Nagumo's Pearl Harbor Attack Force sailed under radio silence, with its radios physically locked down. It is unclear if that deceived the US since Pacific Fleet intelligence had been unable to locate the Japanese carriers in the days immediately preceding the attack on Pearl Harbor.
 * The Japanese Navy played radio games to inhibit traffic analysis (see Examples, below) with the attack force after it sailed in late November. Radio operators normally assigned to carriers, with a characteristic Morse Code "fist", transmitted from inland Japanese waters, suggesting the carriers were still near Japan.
 * Operation Quicksilver, part of the British deception plan for the Invasion of Normandy during World War II fed German intelligence a combination of true and false information about troop deployments in Britain, which caused the Germans to deduce an order of battle that suggested an invasion at the Pas-de-Calais, instead of Normandy. The fictitious divisions that were created for the deception were supplied with real radio units, which maintained a flow of messages that was consistent with the deception.

In computer security
Traffic analysis is also a concern in computer security. An attacker can gain important information by monitoring the frequency and timing of network packets. A timing attack on the SSH protocol can use timing information to deduce information about passwords since, during interactive session, SSH transmits each keystroke as a message. The time between keystroke messages can be studied using hidden Markov models. Song, et al. claim that it can recover the password fifty times faster than a brute force attack.

Onion routing systems are used to gain anonymity. Traffic analysis can be used to attack anonymous communication systems like the Tor anonymity network. Adam Back, Ulf Möeller and Anton Stiglic present traffic analysis attacks against anonymity providing systems . Steven J. Murdoch and George Danezis from University of Cambridge presented research showing that traffic-analysis allows adversaries to infer which nodes relay the anonymous streams. This reduces the anonymity provided by Tor. They have shown that otherwise unrelated streams can be linked back to the same initiator.

Remailer systems can also be attacked via traffic analysis. If a message is observed going to a remailing server, and an identical-length (if now anonymized) message is seen exiting the server soon after, a traffic analyst may be able to (automatically) connect the sender with the ultimate receiver. Variations of remailer operations exist that can make traffic analysis less effective.

Traffic analysis involves intercepting and scrutinizing cybersecurity threats to gather valuable insights about anonymous data flowing through the exit node. By using technique rooted in dark web crawling and specializing software, one can identify the specific characteristics of a client's network traffic within the dark web.

Countermeasures
It is difficult to defeat traffic analysis without both encrypting messages and masking the channel. When no actual messages are being sent, the channel can be masked by sending dummy traffic, similar to the encrypted traffic, thereby keeping bandwidth usage constant . "It is very hard to hide information about the size or timing of messages. The known solutions require Alice to send a continuous stream of messages at the maximum bandwidth she will ever use...This might be acceptable for military applications, but it is not for most civilian applications." The military-versus-civilian problems applies in situations where the user is charged for the volume of information sent.

Even for Internet access, where there is not a per-packet charge, ISPs make statistical assumption that connections from user sites will not be busy 100% of the time. The user cannot simply increase the bandwidth of the link, since masking would fill that as well. If masking, which often can be built into end-to-end encryptors, becomes common practice, ISPs will have to change their traffic assumptions.

title: Traffic analysis