User talk:Harmil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harmil tries to pay attention to this page as often as he can.

If you want to leave a note for me, you can just click the link below.

Add a new section

Contents 1 Archives 2 Image Dispute 3 monad edits 4 Clan Irvine Page 5 Festa del Redentore 6 Pre-sales 7 Agent Lemon 8 Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly 9 Adam glogauer 10 Pedophile Party 11 List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons 12 You're famous 13 Philip Solo - your comments on my entry 14 Non neutral article on section: JFK II: The Bush Connection 15 Handling of Elephant 16 Seamen's Bethel 17 copyright violation status of Alex Martelli article 18 That guy 19 Sarasas Ektra School 20 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet 21 JFK II: The Bush Connection nominated for deletion 22 Babylon 5 23 Image:Puff-ball mushroom.jpg 24 Womble Carlyle 25 Character/Actor lists (Babylon 5) 26 User talk:86.138.73.188 27 September 11 image 28 9/11 29 Agavemark, welcome 30 Babylon 5 cast 31 Italics and Quotes 32 Tiamat 33 Ratkovo 34 Don't delete Candace Von 35 Firearms (computer game) 36 Women Fully Clothed 37 Atheist 38 Jože Snoj 39 Half-life (disambiguation) 40 Link Removal 41 On the Equivalence of Perl 6 Rules and PEGs 42 Wiser 43 Fair use rationale for Image:Greyhawk_Supplement_1975.jpg 44 Please do not remove information again. 45 Pleaser contact me directly 46 Ian Chadwick and Voodoo Tiki 47 Faggot 48 "Alaska Natives" not "Native Alaskans" 49 Open ended d100 50 Faggot

[edit] Archives

The following archives of old messages will be preserved:

• June-August, 2005
• August, 2005
• September-December, 2005
• January-June, 2006

[edit] Image Dispute

Just letting you know I left a response to your last comment on my talk page. The gist of it was that I have tagged the image for community review - it is now listed at WP:PUI. --Hetar 03:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] monad edits

Why did you remove the philosopher links but leave the occult ones on this page? LoveMonkey 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please apply your comments about your edits to the monad talkpage. Thanks LoveMonkey 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Irvine Page

Hey I did the Clan Irvine page there is no copywrite problems here. There are several pages about the clan on the net all containing the same history so its likely to be different. I have looked at the linked page it is suposadly copied from and although its much the same infomation its written in quite a different way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mjgm84 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 July 2006.

[edit] Festa del Redentore

Thanks. Just nice to work on an article about something entirely pleasant for a change. Itsmejudith 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-sales

Hey Harmil... I have violated the copyrights of some websites by taking stuff from there and adding them to "Pre-sales"....I apologize for that...But the reason I did so is that I couldn't find any related articles about Pre-sales in wikipedia, where pre-sales is an emerging and an important business area that people should know about...I wanted to contribute and help people by writing stuff, that are not my own, about pre-sales because I'm not creative enough to write my own article from scratch..And you know what?? Many people i know checked the article i wrote and found it very helpful...So I'm asking from you, or any administrator or creative writer to right an article about pre-sales and help the people to know more about this rare yet significant business area... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moenada (talk • contribs) 06:51, 19 July 2006.

[edit] Agent Lemon

Great idea. Good job! See my talk page for more. Erik the Rude 20:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly

WP:MUSIC has *Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

it has been on the Radio 1 playlist. I added this information to the article with the edit that removed the tag!! I have been making a list of things to have been on playlists of UK radio stations Morwen - Talk 14:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam glogauer

• What notable band would that be? (He was a former drummer of one of the bands 10 years prior, is that the one you are referring to?) --Porqin 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• He left the band in 1995, their only clame to fame comes in 1997, with a different drummer. I don't think he becomes notable, because the band releases a hit single with different band members after his time. He in himself accomplished nothing. --Porqin 19:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for questioning my comments further on the WP:AFD page. Sometimes it is easy to say "Blank violates WP:BLANK", without saying exactly why. --Porqin 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophile Party

Regarding your speedy tag on Pedophile Party, believe it or not it is a real party. Saw some news articles recently. I've done a bit of cleanup and stub tagged the article. As this was a good faith attempt by a new user you might want to consider asking the user to expand the article first before speedying it. It would be a shame to discourage someone too much when they are first starting. --StuffOfInterest 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to wikipedia and i am trying to contribute in any way i can... so can you help me find references for the pedophile party as i do know that the party exists and has been on the news recently, thanks--Sambo freeman 09:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very for the advice!.. i shall put the references on when i have spare time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sambo freeman (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2006.

[edit] List of deities of Dungeons & Dragons

Happy to be of service, as I was sort of shirking heading off to let my PCs kill all my nice, neat little NPCs. Anyhow, I came upon it trying to find out about Wastri, one of those great "WTF" gods of DnD lore. Noticed the big lapse in devils, & was pleased to find a nice little template to lift for refrencing, frankly. I'm thinking of adding more to the list of Demon Princes based on the Abyss-by-layer chart in the back of the Codex, but I'm not sure if it would be too off-topic. What do you think?--m:. 06:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I think, to leave off the list from the Codex. Gotta watch the signal-to-noise ratio.--m:. 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're famous

Hey Harmil, congratulations, your comment on the Elephant talk page been quoted by Ars Technica, a major tech news web site. You're famous now. ;-) -/- Warren 05:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Solo - your comments on my entry

I belive your comments on my page which was created after other contributors posted a link to my name as a result of my notable achievements in UK Community and Children's Radio are, I believe unwarranted and uninformed.

You have chosen to hastily rate my entry as schedule for delete and posted a talk comment 'resume does not contain any achievements of note' or the like.

I consider this to be ill mannered and uniformed and and you did not say if you had prior to posting this note conducted any research to see the weight of press and positive comment my projects have engendered since 1996.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the UK or Children's Radio scene around the world. My page is included for the following acceptable reasons

The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events

If you read more carefully you will see that I clearly fit both of the above in the UK and though this may not have permeated through to you personally or you may not rate my work of over 12 years in being one of the people who has helped pioneer a completely new national tier of community radio in the Uk with over 100 stations, this clearly is 'an achievement of note' and hardly insignificant. The achievement of the first and ONLY kids radio station to ever win a full licence in the restrictive UK radio licencing regime is a significant one with lasting effects and is still a historic 'first'

I have personal letters from NSPCC, UNICEF and the Citizenship Foundation as well as from many hundreds of UK parents which seem to indicate that the work which has attracted UK national press response is 'of note' therefore I disagree with your somewhat cursory and contemptuous rating of my page. I have, for the record, never heard of you either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip solo (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 August 2006.

[edit] Non neutral article on section: JFK II: The Bush Connection

Harmil,

Several times my edits have been removed from this JFK II section, apparently by you. You accuse me of using non-neutral points in my edits. However, a more objective and fair examination of the subject matter shows that my points are much closer to reality than the ones you keep putting back in. Whose opinions are these that you keep putting back in? For example, these comments keep being put back in:

"The claim that the content is "documented" is thin, however. Many quotes go unsourced. Many of the sources that are cited are secondary (such as the movie, JFK, or documentary films). The film also cites popular culture as evidence."

Someone reading this would get the false impression that John Hankey offers no hard or documented evidence. Yet, this is flat out lie. The video JFK II offers a mountain of documentary evidence, including declassified documents and historic video and interview clips with many officials and doctors who are first hand sources. Why isn't this kind of hard evidence mentioned? Why are you misleading people this way? Have you seen the DVD? Perhaps you need to watch it again.

To frame the view of a CIA/government conspiracy regarding the JFK assassination as just an unsupported "conspiracy theory" is not an objective claim and ignores the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Why do you insist on enforcing this point of view which cannot be supported by fact, but just your biased opinion?

Please explain why your biased opinionated statements are allowed to stand, but my statements which more closely conform to historical fact keep being removed? Does the truth matter? Who runs wikipedia?

I don't understand why certain people have to power to enforce points of view in wikipedia that are so controversial and are not backed up by fact? What gives?

Is there any fair way to resolve this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.198.218.222 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 August 2006.

[edit] Handling of Elephant

I would appreciate feedback on how we ought to have handled the situation at Elephant differently, and what exactly was wrong with the page protections and other griefs you list on your user page. I am strongly opposed to replacing administrative discretion with proscriptive policy, but constructive suggestions for similar situations would be valuable. Thanks! -- SCZenz 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page; since I'm replying by number to several of your points it would be messy to reply here. -- SCZenz 22:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Dealing with coordinated vandalism and tell me what you think. In fact, edit it if you think it's missing anything. Once you've had a look, I'll show it around more generally and see if people think it's useful. -- SCZenz 03:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seamen's Bethel

Thanks. I have a bunch of other photos from the downtown (including one of almost every info-stand thing in the Historic Park) that I may upload, though at the moment I'm not entirely sure whether Wikicommons will let me upload files that may likely never get put in the articles (as there's too many to fit in them). I assume they'll allow them anyways, but I still want to check with someone who knows the rules for that project well. -- LGagnon 01:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyright violation status of Alex Martelli article

Harmil, you rightly marked my firt version of Alex Martelli article as violating the copyright. Some days ago I changed it and I think now there are no violations at all. What is the iter for the releasing of my currente version?

Thanks,

--Agentilini 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That guy

Thanks for bringing to our attention that poet guy who has no notability-- I'll bring him to AfD, where justice will be served a bit better. It seems that it's a vanity article. Again, thanks! AdamBiswanger1 15:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarasas Ektra School

Morning Harmil

I'm new to this game, so appreciate advice.

You suggest the article contains some speculation without sources. Can you specify? I will edit or add data if required.

Adrian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrianmjones44 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 August 2006.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pudgenet

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JFK II: The Bush Connection nominated for deletion

The article JFK II: The Bush Connection, which you have discussed, has been nominated for deletion. You can contribute to the discussion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFK II: The Bush Connection The JPS^{talk to me} 14:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babylon 5

The issues had been discussed. Look no further than Talk:Babylon_5#Theme_section_needs_major_overhaul or the IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR WP:GA on the Talk page. Others have pointed out the same problems. Most of the material that was removed IS Original Research that frankly can't be verified one way or another. Over the last few days I've attempted to source anything from a reliable source that would give creedence to any of the information that exists in these subjects (extensive google searches on my part). Some sources are sketchy at best, and most don't have anything sourced at all (An unfortunate side effect of the show ending before the last major internet explosion, and that fans are less militant about having to know everything like many Star Trek or Star Wars fan, leaves us with little online sources that still exist).

All of the material I've removed was either very unencylopedic (it may have been true, but has no place in the article, such as a character's dialect of English, something that would better exist as part of an article for their character/species), or was blatant Original Research. Also I'd like to illustrate a point: Why are only Ivanova and Garabaldi mentioned in the Ethnicity and language section? Why not every character? As I see it, that is why it's better to leave that kind of character information in the individual character's pages. Radagast83 18:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Puff-ball mushroom.jpg

You removed Image:Puff-ball mushroom.jpg from Lycoperdon perlatum. Why do you think that the pictured puffballs are of a different species? Which species? Olegivvit 12:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Womble Carlyle

I am actually a member of this particular law firm and can assure you that there are no copyright issues with the article as written. What do I need to do to remove the copyright notice that you added? Tlmclain 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A revision has been posted to [1]. Hopefully this will correct the issue. Tlmclain 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character/Actor lists (Babylon 5)

I'm not sure where the policy is specified, however it was listed in the To-Do section on the Talk page. Just to clarify, I didn't write ""Cast and primary characters" section: List should be Actor, Character (not other way around). The real-world context is an actor played a character (encyclopedia) - not the character was", one of the Wiki staff who reviewed the article did. I simply made the changes and wrote "Done" next to it. User Davodd was the one who make the original comment. Koweja 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:86.138.73.188

Thanks for that. It was a mistake on my part, and I have struck the comment and left a note of apology. --Guinnog 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 image

I think I read it as anyone would. If it was intended to say what you think it did, then it should have said something like "...fire can be seen emerging to the left of the North Tower." Putting "to the left" after "North Tower" makes the caption non-sensical, since the subject of "to the left" would, at first glance, appear to be "the North Tower," naturally because it's the noun immediately preceding it. Someone re-reverted it to "to the right" anyways. I think it looks fine this way. -Palpatine 18:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that "[the] huge plume of smoke and fire" is coming from the South Tower, and that's what it's supposed to be referring to, but then why even mention the North Tower? That's what's throwing the whole thing off. -Palpatine 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate making this more difficult for you, but now the caption is again saying that the North Tower is "to the left in the background," when it (the North Tower) is actually to the right, in the foreground. You say so yourself that it's "[t]he right-hand tower" in your edit summary. -Palpatine 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But the building on the left has no giant TV Antenna on top of it. The one on the right does, and that was the North Tower. Whatever the size of the plumes of smoke, the fact that one has a 360 ft. high TV Antenna sticking out of it trumps everything else. That one was the North Tower. In addition, the one on the left was clearly hit lower, as this image shows was the South Tower. The one on the right, with the TV Antenna, was clearly hit higher, as you will see in the same image, was the North Tower. -Palpatine 18:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, since you're going off of the smoke as an indication of when one was hit, look at the one on the right. It's clearly been smoking for some time. All of the smoke is wafting up and to the right due to the wind. Now compare it to the one on the left, which is a complete gray mess. That's because it was just hit, and debris is flying everywhere. That, and the fact that you can see that the smoke from the one on the right is coming from floors 93-99, very close to the top. The South Tower was hit at floors 77-85, which the one on the right clearly does not show. -Palpatine 18:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this has gotten to the point where I'm debating left and right with you. Look at the one on the right (hold up your right hand and extend your thumb 90 degrees and it makes a backwards L). It has a 360 ft. TV Antenna on top of it, and the smoke is coming from floors 93-99. It is the North Tower. It was hit first. I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make this. The one on the left has smoke coming from further down than the one on the right, because it was hit at floors 77-85, and it has no TV Antenna on top of it. The one on the left has more smoke because it's just been hit. Why in the world would the building hit first have more smoke?

Please look at the following photos:

• UA 175 approaching South Tower Note that the building already smoking was hit high up, and it has a TV Antenna on top.
• The moment UA 175 hits the South Tower Once again, note the most distinguishing feature of the North Tower, the TV Antenna. Note that it is smoking, and the smoke is drifing up and to the left.
• And finally, here's the giant dark smoke you're talking about Notice which tower it's coming from?

-Palpatine 19:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

EDIT:The last image link was wrong. The comment on the second image was corrected too. The smoke is drifting to the left.

Jesus Christ, I thought I was going insane. Yeah, you must've been looking at the old, "unfree" image, which is like a 180 degree difference in terms of angle (and a much better image than what's on there now). That was the most insane dispute I've ever had with another user, and it was all for nothing. -Palpatine 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

Thanks for your generous words. I'm glad we have something we can both live with for now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agavemark, welcome

Thank you for the welcome and the advice, I will be sure and read all recomend before new edits...

Just on my background I am currently working for CRT (Consejo Regulador del Tequila) and I sit in the advisory board of one of the mayor tequila companies (which I will not mention in my comments or edits because we are restricted on this issue). I also go to Tequila about 3 times a week and realized the distance was incorrect (there are several signs indicating distance Guadalajara – Tequila).

I jumped in to editing Tequila because a saw many things that are missing or some which are not correct, I am taking the CRT documents and NOM documents as my source, nothing more official. I will change other things later which I see that are not totally correct, but as I mentioned, I will read your advise first.

Marcos

[edit] Babylon 5 cast

My image is bigest and coolest.;) Please don't remove it from Babylon 5 page.

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Q Original (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 September 2006.

Please review the definition of vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism, thanks. -Harmil 18:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italics and Quotes

I'm not sure what your comment on my discussion page was supposed to imply. Your reference to italics, in particular is a moot point, as I have never altered, nor used italics.

Your asserting that my correction of quotation marks is not valid goes against logic. There is a correct way to use quotation marks.

I'm not concerned that many editors 'have to' check my minor edit, as nobody 'has' to do anything on this site. However, correct usage of punctuation really never becomes passe.

Quotation Marks

The undertow 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

i am thankful for the pointing out of the uniformity of quotation marks, as far as wikipedia is concerned. i am extrememly disappointed that the uniformity goes against popular usage. i do not approve of this site having its own standards for punctuation. its arbitrary and ridiculous.

cheers The undertow 05:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

i agree that italics serve the same purpose without the ambiguity of quotation placement in relation to punctuation marks. The undertow 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiamat

You wrote: Your recent edit to Tiamat (disambiguation) [2] is not actually in keeping with the disambiguation style outlined at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. This style is intended to make it easy for users to quickly scan a list of of target pages, and select the one which they were looking for.

For this reason, I'm going to return that page to its original state, but rest assured that this is not because I dislike the look of the page after your edits. I actually prefer your version in some ways, but it simply isn't consistant with Wikipedia's Disambiguation style which is rather clear. -Harmil 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:MOSDAB, not WP:D. The only thing I could find that I didn't follow was keeping the bluelink first, and that guideline is a "try to" -- if it doesn't make sense (Tiamat doesn't refer to Pirates of the Spanish Main, for instance, but rather to a sea monster in it), I would think that the guideline should yield to accurate language. I've restored my changes with the bluelinks first (ugh), and also restored my changes that made it follow the MOS in ways previously violated (link to primary topic, order of entries, sentence fragments). -- JHunterJ 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratkovo

It was not me that posted these images into Ratkovo article (check the article history). I was the one who expanded the text there. Another user created this article with one sentence of text, and 9 photograps, so you should either address this to him either change article by yourself. PANONIAN (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Harmil in Ratkovo page there is 9 pictures, on page which you are most proud of, there is 5 pictures??? What is a problem? BTW I am not the author of those pictures but sounds prety.... ----László (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Harmil, this is the user that posted images into Ratkovo article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sors_bona Before you inform all other Wikipedia users about these images, I think you should inform him first. Just a joke. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't delete Candace Von

I got the info personally from Candace Von —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bigkhrisdogg (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 October 2006.

[edit] Firearms (computer game)

• If you could provide a citation/link to the PC Gamer article, I will most likely withdraw the nomination. Thanks! Wickethewok 22:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women Fully Clothed

You deserve part of the credit. if it wasn't for your comments in the debate, I would have passed the AfD listing on by. (And yes, 'twas I who caught your missed sig) Nothing personal, but one of my pet peeves in AfD debates is people who will uncover WP:V qualifying links, but who do not go ahead and edit them into the article. Be bold! --Roninbk _{t c e #} 02:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist

I am not good at rewriting sections, i'm better at small tweaks and caretaking. Much of the section in the article is good, if unsourced. Sourcing it and minor cleanup is a much better option than removing large ammounts of information and replacing it with one small section on pascal's gamble. Lordkazan 02:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jože Snoj

deprodded. My poor slovenian tells me he's a notable poet. He's a redlink on slwiki, but listed in all the relevant lists: poets, writers, songwriters, etc. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half-life (disambiguation)

In this edit, I piped the applicable links at Half-life (disambiguation) as per MoS:DP#Piping, which lists exceptions to "Above all, don't pipe the link." Specifically, "3. Use piping to format or quote a portion of an article whose name consists of both a title and a clarifier; for instance Harvey (film), USS Adder (SS-3), or "School" (song)." --Geniac 15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Removal

The auther that removed the links may be Randy Richards, he has posted material here for dreadmire, a spam site. He then dropped by and erased the link. I am looking in to this as well, he has had a stormy relationship with the online Grayhawk and RPG community for years.

Q —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quode (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 October 2006.

[edit] On the Equivalence of Perl 6 Rules and PEGs

Hello, Harmil:

Rather than my trying to figure it out in the various places it occurs ... is there a source (citation) on the formal equivalence of Perl 6 Rules and Ford's parsing expression grammars? If so -- great. If not ... should PEGs be so ubiquitously equated?

I am more than willing to admit to my own ignorance on the matter, as this may be common knowledge in the Perl community, but I just can't seem to find the citation that formally establishes their equivalence.

In the meantime, I'll back off the references in the various articles where this is alluded to, to avoid ended up reverted for nothing.

Cheers.

QTJ 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked (on my talk page):

Was there a particular way in whicn you felt Perl 6 rules were not equivalent to a parsing expression grammar?

To be fully equivalent, prima facie, Perl 6 rules would have to have:

• and-predicates
• not-predicates
• disjunction disambiguation by order

and-predicates can be constructed from not-predicates: not(not(a)) = pred(a). So it would be sufficient to have those alone. In a result due to Juris Hartmanis (citation available upon request), it is known that the intersection of two context-free languages is not necessarily a context-free language. The PEG article gives an example of this:

S ← &(A !b) a+ B !c 
A ← a A? b 
B ← b B? c 

This grammar accepts the canonical context-sensitive language aⁿbⁿcⁿ.

I see nothing in the citations for Perl 6 rules that suggests that alternatives (a|b) are ordered, and this is a key feature of disambiguation with PEGs. It is known that two grammars (one being a PEG, the other not) that appear the same, but for the slanted alternation / symbol, accept different languages entirely. (Again, citations upon request.) If alternatives in Perl 6 rules are not ordered, then they may not be equivalent.

Finally, asserting that they are equivalent (they may very well be) would seem to be original research. The phrase "parsing expression grammar" is not (yet) part of the common body of knowledge, even amongst parsing specialists, and equating two technologies in passing has an appearance of having already passed into the body of knowledge in the field.

Cheers.

QTJ 07:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey again!

Thanks for the clarifications over on my talk page. :-) I'll give some thought about a possible wording that clarifies the relationship between PEGs and Perl 6 rules. Since you've pointed out that disjunctions are ordered operations, and that the predicate conditions map pretty much one to one, it appears they are functionally equivalent. Thanks for that.

QTJ 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

On a related-but-different matter, since you've been so kind as to give an example on my talk page of a Perl 6 rule that uses predicates (<before P>), could I trouble you to take a look at a total rework of syntactic predicate that I am currently working on? It would be great to include Perl 6 rules in the list of parsers/formalisms that include some form of predication. (You can feel free to just chunk in an entry for it with a ref tag, and I could use the example you provided on my talk page once I get to the examples.) Sandboxed version of the rework is User:QTJ/Syntactic predicate. If you don't have time to work in a brief mention of it, that's fine, but now that I know it's there, might as well include it for coverage.

QTJ 14:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak over on syntactic predicate, Harmil! I've worked in the citation, and plugged in the example you gave on my talk page. :-)

-- QTJ 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Harmil! Noticed your succint one-liner in the Perl 6 rules. By Parr's definition in the paper mentioned in the syntactic predicate article, that would be a semantic predicate, because it invokes code (rather than pure grammar rules). This is just a FYI -- I don't really see the need to point that out in the Perl 6 rules article. :-)

-- QTJ 18:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Got your reply -- yup, that's what I figured. Since you seem to know Perl 6 backwards, forward, inside out as much as anyone, you might find a way to see if its "rule" concept fits into the adaptive grammar notion I just put up. Cheers. --- QTJ 06:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiser

after numerous edits and grammatically correct at that :) i wanted to thank you. i came off as adversarial. i am from a world where IMDB forums end in disaster, even if everyone is in accordance. you offered advice with a NPOV tonality and i have used that to guide newcomers to wikipedia. simply, thanks. The undertow 11:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Greyhawk_Supplement_1975.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Greyhawk_Supplement_1975.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sandstein 17:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably one of the best examples of why this particular template is horribly broken. Everything about this blurb is aimed at recent uploads by relatively new users, and does not take into account cases (like this one) where an image was uploaded months or years ago by a contributor who might not even be active any more. Any trivial amount of research into the image's use could have quickly resolved the issue, and even a relatively new user could have written the fair use rationale. Oh well. -Harmil 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not remove information again.

I've placed the following information on the tequila page:

• The debut of Voodoo Tiki Tequila, a privately owned brand of ultra-premium tequila made from 100% blue agave (Platinu Silver, Reposado, Anejo and 3 year Anejo)and the first to introduce infused tequilas in the US in early 2002 including Prickly Pear, Blue Kiwi and Lime.

which is NO different that the statements above describing Partida. Pleasedo not remove again. It is a fact that this brand has been the first to introduce infused tequilas and t is on record with the CRT in Mexico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.180.157 (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pleaser contact me directly

I am unsure why you find it necessary to remove all postings regarding Voodoo Tiki Tequila. I am beginning to view this as harassment and suggest that you cease doing so. If you have any concerns about our brand, you can address them with me directly by calling me at 1-VoodooTiki or emailing me at Donna@voodootiki.com. Until then, please do not remove any of postings related to Voodoo Tiki or we will view this as harassment. Thank you and have a great day. Donna Taddeo, President Voodoo Tiki Corp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.180.157 (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ian Chadwick and Voodoo Tiki

oh and by the way, please read more carefully. We are mentioned throughout Ian Chadwick's 14 part essay on tequila, such as:Voodoo Tiki Tequila offers a line of non-traditional infusions that combine tequila with a wide variety of herbal and fruit essences. See here: www.voodootikitequila.com and here: www.voodootiki.com found at: http://www.ianchadwick.com/tequila/mexdrinks.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dietpro1 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

• Please see WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faggot

No! this is not a vandalism! It's about the Wikipedia entry for Faggot (epithet). I would like it if you could please review my MOST recent edit to this page. If there's something wrong, please don't delete the whole thing; instead please show me how I can fix it or perhaps make the correction yourself? Thank you ProtectWomen 07:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I think it is extremely obvious- that the context of Coulter's despicable joke was in reference to Isaiah Washington. While I have not seen anyone in a WP:RS make the connection, it is more than fair to include both instances in the "Usage in popular culture" section (in sequential order) and let the reader come to their own conclusion. As it stands, it is stated in an NPOV factual way. As far as notoriety, the Washington/Knight incidents received far more media coverage than Coulter's flub, so there is no reason to remove that incident but keep the Coulter incident.. Cheers ProtectWomen 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Alaska Natives" not "Native Alaskans"

Hey, I hesitate to change anyone else's userpage, so instead I'm writing you to ask for you to change you link from List of Native Alaskan Tribal Entities to List of Alaska Native Tribal Entities in order to avoid double redirect. I've changed the page name (i.e., moved it) because the common and official usage both in Alaska and by the federal government for indigenous Alaskans is "Alaska Natives." Thanks! --Yksin 17:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S., I just noticed you've got a subpage also with the old link. Thanks again. --Yksin 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right: I did fail to start discussion on this before making the change, but simply took it on myself. My apologies. I have now started a discussion at Talk:List of Alaska Native Tribal Entities, and commit to making the change back again if consensus is that the name should have been retained as it was. However, I think I justified the change there pretty well. But -- I will know better next time (should there be one) to seek consensus before making such a change. --Yksin 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open ended d100

You are right; I was reading the text on the various combinations of xdy and forgot that it was not about the style of random number generation with dice but about notation. And it seems that periodically someone edits the page to include the open ended variation :-) Albmont 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) [a former RPG player and dice lover]

[edit] Faggot

I appreciate your frankness, but of course the section like anything else here, is one in a state of development. Not to mischaracterise your criticism, but you arent arguing against using the Bible as a source, are you? If you can, can you please identify which statements you think are claims and interpretations. Thanks. I'll see you at the talk page shortly. -Stevertigo 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making blanket judgments, please take the issue to the talk page. I will see you there. -Stevertigo 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Im moving your comments from my talk to that talk page. -Stevertigo 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)