User talk:Robert Kowalski

Welcome!

Hello, Robert Kowalski, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Ruud 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ruud, Is this what you meant by placing helpme on my talk page? In any case, I would like your advice about the page negation as failure. As you might know, I edited the section on NAF in logic programming with a link to the NAF page. But the NAF page is a mess. It needs to be deleted and replaced by a new entry. What do you think? And, more importantly, what is the best way to go about it? Robert Kowalski 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an {{expert}} tag to it (which adds a box asking for improvements to be made), as it certainly needs improvement. If you have the time to do so, perhaps you could improve it. You can be bold when you do so, even rewriting it fully if you want. --h2g2bob 13:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages are usually only deleted when the subject not suited for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. When the subject is worthy of inclusion but the current article is incorrect/badly written/etc., it is generally a good idea to place a {{cleanup}} or {{expert}} tag on it to warn the reader and remove any false claims made, or (n severe cases) even to remove the current text and leave a small description (stub) behind (you should not leave a blank page behind as other editors or a bot will mistake this for vandalism.) As H2g2bob noted there is no requirement to leave any of the current text behind if you wish rewrite an article from scratch. —Ruud 20:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, Welcome to the Wikipedia! More experts certainly are needed and should be very welcome. However, you should be aware that some in the community have disdained the contributions of experts and consequently there are some pitfalls to watch out for. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.--Carl Hewitt 01:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that Ruud Koot reverted changes to the article on Logic Programming citing your name in justification. Do you approve of this?--70.132.21.226 02:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of logic programming[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of logic programming, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of History of logic programming. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Robert Kowalski! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Jack Minker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Jim portrait like photo.png[edit]

You uploaded or restored , File:Jim portrait like photo.png, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Computer program contributions[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Computer_program#Prolog. They are profound. Timhowardriley (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horn clause[edit]

You've reverted my edit and the page is back on the error list. The author name in the sfn template and the citation must match, including capitalization. I don't know whether you prefer "van" or "Van" but please make them consistent. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented a work-around to allow "Van" in the citation and "van" in the footnote, as I can see your concern. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. Andy02124 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten van Emden and I agreed to put our names on the paper in alphabetical order, "E" before "K". Maarten explained to me that "van" doesn't count and should be written in lower case. Google scholar cites the paper as "Van Emden and Kowalski". But the official publication https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/321978.321991

names Maarten as "M H van Emden" at the bottom of the first page. Sorry, if my concern seems a bit pedantic. Robert Kowalski (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]