User talk:Adrian.walker

Welcome!

Hello, Adrian.walker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 22:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Data mining[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Adrian.walker! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 01:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to SPARQL, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 06:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to SQL, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. -- Sander Säde 20:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Semantic reasoner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. -- Sander Säde 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to SQL, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007[edit]

Hi Wikipedians --

Sorry about the problems, caused mostly by haste and newbieness to Wikipedia.

I have been corresponding by email with Acro Terion, and I have submitted the following to him/her. Please let me know whether you will unblock me so that I can officially submit the material below.

Thanks Adrian.walker (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 12/7/07, Acro Terion wrote:
>Adrian-
>
>Your plan is reasonable, although you should take some time to understand
>how references work in Wikipedia, or misunderstandings and disappointment
>might ensue if they're not formatted correctly and show up in the wrong
>places, leading to reverts.
>
>I will advise you that you're heading into conflict of interest areas. In
>general, we strongly discourage editors' contributions concerning themselves
>or things that they are directly involved with. Articles on musicians are
>the poster children for this sort of thing. The general feeling is that if
>you or your product is notable enough for inclusion, somebody else will come
>along and do it instead of you. This is great when the subject is popular:
>less so in a smaller community.
>
>References to articles that you wrote would not be valid. You need multiple
>third-party references that establish the product's notability among its peers,
>not just the fact of its existence, and the references should be in reasonably
>broadly-distributed publications. Proceedings of symposia are dangerous, since
>they aren't really third-party sources.
>
>A
Hi Acro --

Thanks for your note, below.

I see your point about musicians and others. However, I'm hoping that appearance in a refereed journal is acceptable as evidence of being notable -- it means that there has been high level peer review, even if the names of the reviewers are noramally not known.

Below is a draft for a new section in Wikipedia, title "Internet Business Logic". You rcomments and corections would be much appreciated. If you find that it has a chance of surviving, I'd like to submit it please, and then link to it form "alternatives to SQL', "expert systems' and so on.

Would it be possible please for you to unblock adrian.walker ?

Thanks, -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic, (IBL), a kind of Wiki for writing and running knowledge. It combines three kinds of semantics: English, Logic, and Data. It provides automatic generation and execution of complex networked SQL, with English explanations of the results. It can also be used as a Service Oriented Architecture endpoint on the Internet. Shared use is free.

The IBL is derived from an experimental, non-networked, expert database system called Syllog [1,2]. Syllog was developed at IBM Yorktown research, where it was used experimentally for environmental reporting [3].

Using the IBL, one can write knowledge into a browser as syllogism-like rules in open vocabulary English. One can then run the rules, optionally over networked SQL databases, and one can get English explanations of the results. Since the author interface is a browser, the knowledge in the rules can be developed, Wiki-style, by several people.

Underlying the IBL and its precursors is the notion that we need three kinds of semantics to work together in order tighten the link between requirements and programs: (1) data semantics, as in a SQL schema or in RDF; (2) logical model theory semantics that specifies what conclusions should follow from any collection of rules and facts; and, (3) the real world meaning of English words and phrases. The IBL approach to English meaning differs from Chomsky grammar-based controlled vocabulary methods such as [4]. The IBL vocabulary for writing rules is open, but the system can be used to manage and reason about controlled vocabularies. In IBL rules, the meaning of English words and phrases is strict. This is achieved via a trade off -- namely, if an author wants two English sentences to mean the same thing, he must write rules that state this explicitly.

It can be argued that an English and logical semantics for rules becomes more important if rules are to be shared on the internet [5,6].

The IBL is online at [7], and shared use is free.

[1] A. Walker, M. McCord, J. Sowa and W. Wilson. Knowledge Systems and Prolog: Developing Expert, Database, and Natural Language Systems, book, second edition, Addison-Wesley, 1990.

[2] A. Walker. Backchain Iteration: Towards a Practical Inference Method that is Simple Enough to be Proved Terminating, Sound and Complete. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 11:1-22, 1993.

[3] A. Walker, Terry Krueger, George Kurian, Anil Nair, Gustaf Neumann, Ulrich Neumerkel, Stefan Nusser, Peter Reintjes, Andrew Taylor, and Daphne Tzoar. People Oriented Software Technology, and its Use in Environmental Reporting. Proc. 6th International Conference and Workshop on Database and Expert Systems, September 1995.

[4] Norbert E. Fuchs, Kaarel Kaljurand, and Gerold Schneider. Attempto Controlled English Meets the Challenges of Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, Interoperability and User Interfaces. In FLAIRS'2006, 2006. http://attempto.ifi.uzh.ch/site/pubs/

[5] A. Walker. Application Semantics via Business Rules in Open Vocabulary English. Presentation at the Semantic Technology Conference, San Jose CA, 2006. http://www.semantic-conference.com/program/sessions/S2.html

[6] A. Walker. Understandability and Semantic Interoperability of Diverse Rules Systems. Position Paper for the W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability April 2005, Washington, D.C. http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19

[7] www.reengineeringllc.com

Dear Mr. Walker,

I'm sorry, but writing about your own work does not establish notability, even with peer review. Peer review only establishes validity, for the most part. Now, if someone else writes about it, especially in a peer-reviewed journal, that goes a long way toward establishing notability. As far as getting unblocked, I suggest you review WP:INDEF for ideas on how to go about that. Good luck!--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian-

Given the fact that you're a co-author for every reference but one, the references don't constitute secondary sources, and are inadmissible.

Since you've posted our email correspondence on your (blocked) userpage, I see no reason to have further off-wiki discussion: it can happen on the userpage. I will not unblock this account.

Regards, Acroterion

(cross-posted for clarity on the userpage)

Given that you were posting as an anonymous IP in evasion of a block, I see no point in further discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 03:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]