Talk:Carl Hewitt/Archive 1

message: You are not one who can pretend to be coy, Carl, so please tell us precisely what your affiliation was.  I just tried to google and to my surprise cannot find you listed anywhere in any of the UM campuses, in any department.   Usually retired full professors are listed somewhere as emeritus faculty.  Can you please clarify this?  If your uni is anything like mine, you can keep a home page in your departmental directory, which could be useful for any non-CS-er trying to quickly spot check your affiliation.  Which I'm not questioning, but why make me do all this detective work?  All you need do is to state Hewitt was on the faculty at UM, SomeCampus, from 19mm to 19nn.   He retired with the rank of Prof. in 19qq.   TIA for this information ---CH  (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliation 

message: I deleted a notice placed by User:CarlHewitt on a scheduled talk at Stanford for two reasons
#It is self-promotion. This is clearly a violation of WP policy.
#At the time it was posted, it was about an event to take place in the future.
Aside from any issues of policy, it is extremely bad judgement to use an encyclopedia article as a private notice board. If you want to advertise a talk, please do it on your user page. --CSTAR 20:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the links to his user talk page as well. --R.Koot 12:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of notice for talk 

message: Some of the stuff here is old and should be archived.  How is this done?  Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 03:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the stuff here is not old. Even if it was it would not be necessary to archive, since the page is very short. --R.Koot 03:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: Is it really appropriate for User:CarlHewitt to use an article talk page to advertise an upcoming seminar presentation? For example, I would go ballistic if say William Dembski used the talk page of the WP article on him to promote talks on Intelligent Design. Hewitt is setting very bad precedent here, in my opinion. --CSTAR 00:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in external links at the suggestion of another Wikipedia editor.--Carl Hewitt 01:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's still advertising.--CSTAR 04:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it's an external link.  We have all sorts of stuff in external links.--Carl Hewitt 05:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  What I meant was that you should put an external link to your homepage (e.g. www.mit.edu/~hewitt) in the article, not a link to an advertisment on the talk page. --R.Koot 12:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think any of this is a good idea. What will prevent anyone from writing links to their webpages? --CSTAR 15:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well anyone does not have an article about him/her on Wikipedia for starters. But if someone does (e.g. Jan_Marijnissen) an external links to his/her homepage is usually provided. To User:CarlHewitt: we do not have "all sorts of stuff" in external links, see WP:EL. --R.Koot 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:EL, linking to your own web site is strongly discouraged.  The Wikipedia is supposed to have comprehensive reporting on the published literature so we ought to be able to report this published material somewhere even if it is only an external link.--Carl Hewitt 17:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is advertising a talk appropriate use of a talk page? 

message: *Dear Carl, thanks for standing up for objectivity and accuracy. Since you mentioned my work, I wish to make it clear (as it can be seen in the 1st deletion bid archive) that I have suggested to offer my corrections and new related publication material to an objective editor (even if he/she disagrees with my conclusions). To date no-one has accepted to act in that capacity. Sadly, this leads to my inability to correct the obvious errors in the article, which then causes more confusion about what I have actually claimed. I suggest that we start a process of asking qualified editors to act as "official editors" of the page, so that their edits remain as the more reliable portions of the article. While non-official editors can still edit the article, their input should be closely and promptly monitored to ensure accuracy. I hate self-promotion (and have never acted in that manner), but I hate disinformation and lies even more. I believe truth does not require salesmen; it simply sells itself. Best regards. Prof. Afshar 09:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not banning intellectuals and scientists (proposed language) 

message: DBLP has a very incomplete list of publications.  The article should now be expanded to include a citation for every reference.--2ndMouse 09:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References vs. Citations 

message: Repeated reverts of this page by Ruud Koot have deprived people of proper credit for their work.  Eugene Charniak has been deprived credit for his co-authorship of the Micro-Reference manual.  Julian Davies has been deprived credit for his implementation work on Planner.  Manual Blum has been deprived credit for his work on automata. Peter de Jong and Jeff Inman have been deprived credit for their work on Open Systems.  Russ Atkinson, Beppe Attardi and Henry Lieberman have been deprived credit for their work on Actor serialization programming constructs.  Carl Manning has been deprived credit for his work on Participatory Semantics.  Depriving these people of proper credit for their work was highly unethical.--TheHoover 17:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated reverts by Ruud Koot have deprived people of proper credit for their work 

message: The image previously included in the article is not an encyclopedic photograph and is not appropriate for use in Mr. Hewitt's infobox. If we cannot find an appropriate photograph, we do not include a photograph. FCYTravis 23:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No image is preferable to a bad image 

message: In addition to the highly unethical business of depriving people of proper credit for their work, why is the idiosyncratic partial list of publications being imposed instead of an annotated complete list of publications?  The partial list being imposed is idiosyncratic in that one of those selected is the wrong version, the latest publication by Professor Hewitt is omitted, etc.  What is the principle behind the partial selection?--64.75.137.250 00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone other than Carl and his students is willing to edit the article to add publications, we'd consider it.  However, you are banned from editing the article.  However, in general, we only list selected publications, rather than all publications which the person has co-authored or co-edited, which seems to be the way you're going.  Perhaps all the publications should be removed?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is an idiosyncratic partial list of publications superior to an annotated complete list? 

message: See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CarlHewitt.  Jehochman  Talk 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch for sock puppets 

message: The recent conflict here harks back to basic conflicts between Wikipedia norms and scientific norms.
In the Wikipedia scientific experts are viewed with suspicion and barred from contributing to their areas of expertise.  In this way, the Wikipedia tries to maintain a level playing field for the nonexpert.  The Wikipedia stance against experts has survived so far in articles that report on well established areas. However, it seems destined to fail in areas at the state of the art where there are very few who have the expertise to participate. Censorship of experts does not seem like a viable solution long term. Perhaps the Wikipedia will adapt to accommodate expertise.
In scientific communities, experts are honored and invited to contribute in their areas of expertise. Attempts are made to engage nonexperts using overviews, surveys and tutorials. Jealousy is important factor in science.  Scientific communities attempt to channel jealousy in constructive directions.  New research directions often have their genesis at least in part motivated by jealousy. Also there is a strong scientific ethic in properly acknowledging the work of others.
The Wikipedia is still working through its jealousy issues. Lacking support for properly acknowledging the work of others is a major weakness of the Wikipedia.--64.75.224.82 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Have you considered becoming an editor at Citizendium? —Ruud 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia norms versus scientific norms 

message: Carl has embarrassed himself with this self-promoting, largely self-authored web page.  Contrary to his implications otherwise, he is no longer on MIT's faculty; he has no office at CSAIL nor does he act in any official capacity.  It is highly doubtful that his (exaggerated) contributions to AI were sufficiently notable to warrant an entry here.  In my humble opinion, he does not meet either the standard for WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.203.18.206 (talk • contribs).
My, my!  We haven't seen controversy like this in foundations since Gödel.--209.101.250.228 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be deleted 

message: I have nominated this article for deletion.  Can the link to the AfD discussion page be added to the article?  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carl_Hewitt RandomHumanoid 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: Please note that I would prefer that the information requested below by Allen McInnes not be published in the Wikipedia for many reasons.  The most important reason is the prevention of identity theft.  Other reasons include the prevention of spam and other marketing attacks.  Thanks,--Prof. Hewitt 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this clarification of your feelings towards this article, I will retract my request for information (although I'd like to point out that any such information included in the article would necessarily come from sources already public, in order to comply with WP:V). --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think details on Hewitt's personal life (apart form his approximate date and place of birth) are really relevant a he is, even though notable for his academic achievements, not a public figure. The article should likewise only focus on this. —Ruud 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. I thought it was worthwhile to produce a more rounded biography, but I can see that perhaps that isn't appropriate here. I defer to you and Prof. Hewitt on this. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help 

message: The Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for harassing Professor Hewitt.  Arthur Rubin took away his category as an American Logician.  Then Ruud Koot deliberately insulted Professor Hewitt by taking away his Emeritus title and he changed the title of Hewitt's "Seminars, Publications, and Academic Biography" to "blog", which is (deliberately?) misleading.  Also Ruud has been censoring those who attempted to protest his antics.  First they called it the "Great Firewall of Ruud."  But recently I have heard it referred to as  "Ruud's Musharraf Strategy." 
The Wikipedia harassment of Professor Hewitt has to stop.--LittleSur 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any material in the article that you believe is incorrect, non-neutral, or improperly sourced?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wikipedia harassment of Professor Hewitt has to stop 

message: Please change site for Professor Hewitt's seminars, publications, and academic biography as follows:  
* Carl Hewitt's seminars, publications, and academic biography
The material is much better formatted on the new site and the old site will go away.  Thanks,--AnotherLiveAndLetLive 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my opinion of course, but you can change the site when the other link is no longer available.  I don't see any reason to change it right now, nor the sounds of urgencies for the need for immediate change.  Thanks,--CrohnieGalTalk 17:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual items have been redirected to the new site, but it is not clear how long all of the redirections will remain valid.  There is no reason to make the change unless you mind inconveniencing Wikipedia users ;-)--AnotherLiveAndLetLive 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly off-topic for Wikipedia, but the biography at the linked site could do with a light copy-edit. For example, the paragraph on the Actor model includes a duplicated occurrence of the phrase "...influenced the development of...", and a misspelling of the word "calculi". --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please change site for Professor Hewitt's seminars, publications, and academic biography 

message: I could easily be mistaken, but it looks as though there is a typo in the Selected Works section. Specifically, I don't think the title of the publication includes the curly braces "{" or "}".
Henry Lieberman and Carl E. Hewitt (1983). A Real-Time Garbage Collector Based on the Lifetimes of Objects Communications of the {ACM}, 26(6).
The headers on the CACM website suggest that they are not included: http://www.acm.org/publications/cacm/
Can someone with more access look into this and (if necessary) make the change? -- Ubermichael
:Thanks for your note. I removed the curly braces. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo? 

message: 
There are calls cite templates that have carriage returns in the titles, which is an error. Please remove the excess carriage returns and the unlabeled URLs are displayed. The titles, with their carriage returns, are:
 Coordinated Computing - 
 Tools and Techniques for Distributed Software
 Robust Composition -
 Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control
If it is easier: the unique words are in these inline cites are: Filman and dissertation .--Laughitup2 (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <SPAN STYLE="display:none">Y</SPAN> Already done (diff) by Utcursch. Nihiltres{t.l} 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial cleanup 

message: I've archived and protected this talk page because people were adding problematic material. As the article is currently protected from editing, there's no need for this to be open at the moment anyway. If anyone has a query, by all means e-mail me. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aactually, as it is protected from editing at the moment the talk page does need to be open for protected edit requests. ViridaeTalk 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone has such a request, they can e-mail me or another admin. I'd like to keep it protected for a short time, Viridae. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah understandable. I am also open to making small, uncontroversial edits for people, they can request them on my talk page while this page is protected. ViridaeTalk 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not believe it is appropriate to protect an article talk page, and definitely not because of something like this. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Removing discussion of articles in major newspapers from talk pages. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The consensus there is clearly that this should not be protected. As a fellow admin, I therefore ask SV to remove the protection. DGG (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied on WT:BLP. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Can we mention (or even just link) this in the article?
* 
I know it may be a bit self-referential, but I think the article is still marginally relevant to the topic. Today, Wikipedia is big and if some prominent figure was banned from editing Wikipedia, that becomes an interesting fact. -- Taku (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think this is especially notable in the context of his overall career. Redquark (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Redquark. One article written more than a year after the event indicates that it's not that important. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is probably not a major event to the person, but since The Guardian is a major newspaper, to me, it seems to make sense to add a link to the newspaper article in this article. But if others think it's not worth even mentioning, then it's ok with me.-- Taku (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia ban 

message: I'm not sure that naming the list of sock puppets on this talk page is inapproriate.  They're not banned from Wikipedia, merely banned from editing his articles.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a set of  boxes really the appropriate way to do this though? The single box links to his main account talk page, which links to the list of suspected sock puppets (which is more complete anyway), that's sufficient for enforcement of keeping him from using them to edit this article (I didn't know until you said, by the way, that there was a topic ban in place). An article talk page is more visible, and the "notable wikipedian" box provides less context. —Random832 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to his suspected sockpuppets category to the box, is this sufficient? —Random832 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think that covers it.  Thanks.  (I wrote a longer message, but it's more appropriate for WP:AN or the Village Pump.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Linking to the article twice in one post, and in an edit summary, when it's already linked above, and you're arguing that there's no need to link to it, is completely gratuitous. Please do not do it again. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where you are coming from. You are coming at this from the point of view of trying to cause minimum harm, which to you includes a minimum number of mentions of the exact link in question. I am coming at this from the point of view of being maximally clear and precise in my language. You seem to repeat the problem of not realizing that lack of clarity is not helpful.  Please do not do it again. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the sudden interest in clarity on this page? You have never edited the article, or the talk page before today. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm interested in clarity everywhere, hence my keen lifelong interest in logic. But I take it that what you wish to know is what brings me to this page. I'm an old retired guy who likes to spend his retirement learning new things. For a while I found it fun and useful to record new things I learned from reliable sources here at wikipedia and comeback later to see what new interesting things people had added. Lately, I'm doing less of that and have been studying Wikipedia itself and when I come across something I feel I can help with, then I try to help. That was my intent here. To try to help - just like you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have restored the diff deleted by SlimVirgin, because the deletion was done without explanation, and since one should use administrative powers to hide entries in the history only in appropriate circumstances. SlimVirgin, rather than attempting the deletion again, I would like to ask you to make the case for what harm is in  discussing this news article relevant to this Wikipedia article. Thank you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at the Guardian article in question (Oleg's link may be enough to indicate which article), I think it would be more appropriate in the article Wikipedia than here; for what it is worth, this can be done without saying more than "a distinguished professor" in the article text or notes. The Guardian does view this as a milestone in Wikipedia's history, to which it is more significant than it is to Hewitt; other professors have done silly things in their hobbies without it appearing in their article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppets 

message: Please delete User talk:CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Carl Hewitt--67.180.173.91 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: done --CSTAR (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! Carl--98.207.43.7 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete "User talk:CarlHewitt" from the Wikipedia 

message: Please delete User talk:CarlEHewitt from the Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Carl Hewitt--12.49.221.91 (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Since the main page was deleted, this seemed uncontroversial.--CSTAR (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Carl--12.49.221.91 (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete "User talk:CarlEHewitt" from the Wikipedia 

message: Please delete the article Carl Hewitt from the Wikipedia.
Thanks,
Carl Hewitt--12.49.221.91 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No quick luck here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Hewitt. Feel free to nominate it again, but I doubt there will be agreement for the deletion. Mr. Hewitt, you are notable, as such, Wikipedia has an article about you. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that will happen.  Now, deleting all the articles about the Actor Model and Mr. Hewitt's interpretation of indeterminancy seems more reasonable and computation theory seems more reasonable.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete article "Carl Hewitt" from the Wikipedia 

message: Why is this page protected? There's no mention of it on this page that i can see Silent52 (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the protect log, the reason is to enforce Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that still relevant though? It merely seems to show Carl Hewitt is banned from certain articles, also it's only him, not everyone. Or have i missed the point? Silent52 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're right that the page no longer needs to be protected. Let's see what Ruud Koot says (perhaps you could drop him a note?), he protected the page. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, we shall see what happens Silent52 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmm, I unprotected the page before I red this discussion beyond the first post. I think the page has been protected for too long. I hope Ruud won't mind. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: In order not to confuse Wikipedia users, the inaccurate "Carl Hewitt at DBLP Bibliography" should be removed from the external references.  An accurate list of publications Carl Hewitt's Publications is linked to from Carl Hewitt's home page.--65.160.18.38 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Carl. I've put your publications page on there, for balance, but I've left the DBLP reference because it is a well-recognized and independent external source. (It's odd they haven't recorded any of your recent publications, yet, though.) Sam Staton (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate DBLP article should be removed from external references 

message: In the comments section of the above mentioned article, Hewitt says
:Given the Wikipedia debacles of Afshar, Connolley, Gann, Harnad, Kort, Kowalski, Lanier, etc., an academic would be well advised to think long and hard about whether to participate!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.48.170 (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kowalski hasn't said anything about his words or article being in error; in fact, he seems to have been supporting deprecation of some of Carl's comments.  I can't speak for any of the others, but Kowalski has spoken for himself in this matter.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The most complete academic history is in Middle History of Logic Programming on ArXiv and Hewitt's version of the controversy with quotations from Kowalski is in Corruption of Wikipedia on Google Knol.  It seems that both Kowalski and Hewitt have problems with Wikipedia.--67.169.145.144 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: That's unfortunate.  I don't see anything unfortunate in Carl's giving up on Wikipedia, though.  Even people who clearly are experts in a field have been banned from Wikipedia for being unable to realize that they may be wrong.  Now, here, I'm not saying that Carl's edits are wrong; just that they didn't have any sources other than his papers, usually unpublished.  I take exception to many of the articles related to the Axiom of choice, but don't express my objection unless I can find a published paper, written by other than my family, supporting the statements.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many Wikipedia administrators like Arthur who dream of stopping progress in the publication of free, open, online encyclopedias.  And it looks like they are succeeding on Wikipedia.  Fortunately, Google Knol has appeared where articles can be published without their censorship.67.180.94.190 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Knol and arXiv have their place, as do Wikipedia, Scholarpedia and Citizendium.  It probably would have been nice if someone other than Carl had been willing to work on asynchronous computing articles here, but Wikipedia rejects self-submitted material, even if accurate.  (I'm trying not to imply whether I believe Carl's submissions have been accurate.  English doesn't have the proper conditional tenses.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of its business model, Wikipedia  attempts to host only articles of conventional wisdom and morality as judged and enforced by the censorship of administrators.  However, the power of censorship tends to corrupt administrators. (See Corruption of Wikipedia for examples.)  This corruption is tolerated and in some cases even encouraged because Wikipedia is highly dependent on administrators donating large amount of time to their censorship duties.  Censorship power over article content is a necessary reward for the unpaid administrators even if it sometimes impairs the quality of articles.67.169.8.122 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An academic would be well advised to think long and hard about whether to participate in Wikipedia 

message: Administrators have repeatedly deleted the section "Observer article on Hewitt and his response" from this article thereby adding to the evidence that Wikipedia is indeed corrupt.171.66.34.182 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observer article on Hewitt and his response 

message: Please delete the unflattering photo of Professor Hewitt.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.8.136 (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to replace it with another photo. If you send me a photo by email, together with a statement releasing it under an acceptable license (like CC-BY-SA, GFDL, public domain), I'll put it in the article. See http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~jitse/ for my email address. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but what is so unflattering about this photograph? () The lighting and angle of the photograph and subject are much less than perfect, but I don't see how it is "unflattering"? —Ruud 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really show his face full on, so it's inappropriate for a bio.  It looks like you snuck up on him from behind.  If you're worried about libel, you shouldn't be using such a photo. 67.169.48.55 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please delete unflattering photo of Professor Hewitt 

message: I have requested that the Wikimedia Foundation NOINDEX this article in accordance with a proposal by Lise Broer at Biographies of living persons:  An ingenius compromise?.  --Carl Hewitt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.241.176 (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to NOINDEX this article 

message: I've semi-protected this page because of the recent edits, in accordance with the ArbCom ruling: "Given the scale of apparent evasions of the ruling during 2007, by the use of large numbers of IP numbers from the West Coast of the USA, semi-protection of affected articles may be applied for periods of up to one month, and to their Talk pages in cases of overbearing comments."
Would the person or persons posting as anons please just stop? There's been enough disruption over the last couple of years to last a lifetime. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would any of the regular editors here strongly object if I were to archive this entire page? Then the article and talk page could start afresh, with hopefully no more talk about who has been attacking whom. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I take it the silence means no objection, so I'm going to archive now. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Please remove  from the top of the article, as it is making it show up in :Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.
Logan Talk Contributions 23:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Hadal (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Logan, 5 June 2011 

message: Please make the following update:  Hewitt is currently Board Chair of the International Society for Inconsistency Robustness (http://www.isir.ws). The current listing of his position as Program Chair of the Symposium expired months ago. Untalker (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Anomie⚔ 02:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hewitt is Board Chair of the International Society for Inconsistency Robustness (http://www.isir.ws). 

message: Hewitt is a founder of the field of inconsistency robustness which is defined as follows:
:Inconsistency robustness is information system performance in the face of continually pervasive inconsistencies---a shift from the previously dominant paradigms of inconsistency denial and inconsistency elimination attempting to sweep them under the rug. Inconsistency robustness is both an observed phenomenon and a desired feature:
:*It is an observed phenomenon because large information systems are required to operate in an environment of pervasive inconsistency. How are they doing?
:*It is a desired feature because we need to improve the performance of large information systems.
Hewitt is Chair of the Board of Directors of International Society for Inconsistency Robustness.
Untalker (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: - Much of the material is copied directly from this paper without any paraphrasing, and is thus a copytright violation. WP:Copyrights. -- Dianna (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inconsistency Robustness" (please add new section with this name) 

message: Professor Hewitt is a prominent opponent of the patentability of software, being the founder of SUPA (Software UnPatentability Alliance). He recently spoke at Google "Software Unpatentable?" and eBay  and is the chair of the upcoming panel of the VC Taskforce Software Patent Quagmire? .
Please add the above section to the article after "Client Cloud Computing".
: Not done: Sorry, but you need to be more specific about where you would like this text added. Also, it ideally needs to be backed up by reliable, third-party sources and not rely so much on primary sources. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opponent of software patentability 

message: iRobust is the commonly used short name for the International Society for Inconsistency Robustness.Untalker (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. How exactly would you like this to be incorporated into the article? Please reactivate the  template when you reply. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  iRobust