User talk:Harmil/Archive 04

Archive of User talk:Harmil for the months of January-June of 2006. -Harmil

Vaginal Flatulence
Nope, I just noticed the AfD tag wasn't subst'd so I fixed it, then noticed the discussion. You can probably take down the AfD tag. Serlin 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Popups
In regard to your question on my talk page about popups, it is a javascript tool which is available somewhere on the wikipedia site (I don't have the url offhand, but if you click on the word "popups" in one of my edit summaries it will take you there). Ryanjunk 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The popup javascript tool gives a way to automatically revert to a prior version of a page in case of vandalism. It creates the message in the edit summarily automatically, I suppose to let people know the tool was used in that edit. Ryanjunk 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay Youth UK
Gay Youth UK GYUK

The reason why I "link spammed" as it seemed (even though, as you noted, it was wholly unintentional), to a few sites is because we are partners with or have had direct involvement with them. In particular "The Queer Youth Alliance" Queer Youth Alliance is an almost partner organisation to our GYUK. Outrage! was included on our list of affiliations because I/we see this affiliation as an important organisation, particularly for young gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender young people throughout the entire United Kingdom.

Similarly, LGBT Youth Scotland is a case where I used the link in order to provide a heightened awareness of Gay Youth Organisations in the United Kingdom (of which, there arw less than three UK-wide organisations in the entire country).

I would like to replace the link to GYUK on the Queer Youth Alliance (QYA) page as it is a long established link, and was there even before I edited the outdated link on the wiki for that.

You expressed the need for a citation on a piece of the article which I did not personally write. It is a subjective statement, partially based on a common perception held between gay youth groups in the United Kingdom. However one could convey a way of almost measuring this statement is indeed beyond me.

I'll read the guidelines though, as admittedly I hadn't before. Thank you for your time and ongoing work.

PS. Sorry about the signing thing; I thought you had to do it :l

Talk page

I dislike your attitude towards me, most particularly in this thread. You have to remember that the GYUK organisation is non-profit, therefore there is no "gain" element in it for anyone. If the subjective ideas in the article invoke so much disproval from you, how can it be rectified?

--Ludo 01:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Must ?
Hello Harmil. At your recent edit of MEST_%28Scientology%29, 16:11, 25 February 2006 Harmil m (rv. removal of defintion) You substituted the word "must" for "can". You notice there is no verification of that sentence and when you changed the "definition" you did not include a citation. Do you know something the rest of us don't? If so, please include a citation and re-revert the word. In the meantime I have changed it back to sensibility, "can". Terryeo 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfulfilled Prophecy
I appreciate your thoughts and you are welcome to them. However, several editors agreed with the change and I clearly stated what I had done and why. Agreed, we did have an editor who I view as a vandal change it to something with which no one was happy. I see a problem it that it was not immediately reverted to the changed title, but I am not against the new title created by T-Rex. The old title clearly was not supported. Has this resulted in more debate; yes. I plead guilty. Let's move on. Storm Rider 04:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note, the voting is under way. Your opinion would be welcome, I'm sure. Best... Tex 19:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Powers - India
Thanks for your comments.

We seem to disagree on two points: whether it is appropriate to refer to India's expanding population and whether it is neutral to refer to the Indian armed forces as 'well disciplined'. Dealing with the latter point first.

I will freely admit that I am fairly well-disposed towards India as a nation, however my use of 'well disciplined' is not intended to constitute any kind of endorsement. What I seek to suggest is nothing more than that discipline in enforced amongst the ranks, with a strong NCO cadre and capable officers. By example; one of my particular interests is Russia. The Russian army is comprable in size, funding and equipment to the Indian army; the difference between the two armies is that the Russian army is rife with bullying, corruption and it lacks any recognisable NCO system. Rates of pay are so inadaquate that the army is not seen as a career of choice, moral is extremely poor, leadership from officers is in many cases totally absent.

It was against this background that I hoped to suggest that the Indian army had a more 'professional' and 'disciplined' ethos, comprable more with the best Western armies. I hope that you will agree that this is a valid point, I think that the word 'disciplined' encapsulates it fairly well, but of course I'm open to suggestions.

On the first point, it is a matter of wide agreement that on current trends India will overtake China in terms of population, which leads to inferences in respect of India's future economic potential. I see this simply as reinforcing the later point that India has the potential to become a Superpower. I didn't regard the point as being a case of predicting events as rather being a reasonable extrapolation of current trends. It's a relatively minor point in the article and served to indicate how India would transcend Major Power status.

Anyway, I'd be interested in any views you might have. I don't think that the points are invalid and I'm sure wording could be worked out.

Best wishes,

Xdamr 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your message.


 * With the greatest respect I don't think that vandalism has anything to do with this. What we have here is, as far as I am aware, a simple difference of opinion as regards content.  You hold one view and I another.  I don't think that the two points in question are out of place given the general tenor of the article.  However I do agree with you that the article would do with an overhaul.  I think that we need better integration between the Superpower, Major Power and national pages for the relevant countries.


 * Xdamr 15:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No point in doing things by halves, if I agree with you I'll do it violently, ok? :)


 * Xdamr 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Major powers (210.84.9.109)

 * I just wished to ask your opinion on the Major Powers article itself. It seems you wish to be very careful in sticking to the past and present. However, one can also notice that the articles superpower, Major powers and Potential Superpowers are all very much hypothetical articles (although Major Powers is the least 'prediction based' of these articles). The point is that there have been things said in these articles (example):


 * It is debatable whether the current emphasis on extractive industry will hamper Russia's long-term growth (in context to Russia)


 * That are in no way facts, but people using past or present events to predict the future. Of course the Potential Superpowers should stay that way, but that 'Potential' has seeped into both Superpower and Major powers. Anyway, the point is, I have been working on these articles for a very very long time and my mindset has turned me into a user that ends up predicting many things. So sorry for any biased or potentially outrageous comments :) 210.84.9.109 07:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Invisible edits
Hi Harmil,
 * Well, spotted, that edit should have changed "Early Life" to "Early life" (process already fixed), I think no more invisible edits should occur. I'll check a sample of a hundred, if you see any, please let me know. Rich   Farmbrough 18:00 5  March 2006 (UTC).

minuscule articles...
Everything's better than the present title :) Although I'm not sure what you mean by "object of the clause". "initial" was, of course, an adjective originally, but it can be a noun too ("illuminated initial", "my initials", etc.). dab (&#5839;) 14:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony
Hi there, I notice that you tagged this page for speedy deletion, five minutes after it wqas created, with the reason "non-encyclopedic, and not even notable as Babylon 5 fancruft". However, "non-encyclopedic, and not even notable as Babylon 5 fancruft" is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion. As a result, I have changed this tag to a prod tag.

Might I ask that in future you give an article a little more than five minutes to develop rather than applying a speedy deletion tag? Also, please don't mark deletion nominations as minor edits. Thanks. Stifle 19:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've clarified and expanded (far more than the article deserves) my reasoning for the speedy deletion request on Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony. I hope that this helps you to understand the rationale for this nomination, and the entirely non-encyclopedic nature of this article. I have a feeling that some people see the word "fancruft" in a nomination and assume that the nomination is being made on that basis. Red-read my rationale and you will see that I was poiting out that, even as fancruft, the article could not be seen as meeting the notability requirement stated in CSD/Articles item #7. Thank you for your time. I was under the impression that speedy nominations should be marked as minor, and I have done so for the last year or so, but I'll look into it and change as required by the policies involved (which may have changed). -Harmil 19:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While I may agree that the page should be speedied, CSD A7 refers to real people or real groups of people. This article is about a fictional group. I'm afraid that it will have to go to AFD or some other venue. Stifle 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Film industry
Hi, the problem with it was that everything on the article that previously existed had been wiped out and replaced with things that didn't belong on it. Even the section titled 'motion picture industy' was copied and pasted directly out of the Film article. If you think you can salvage something from the article, that isn't included in either the Film article or any of the articles linked from it through the mainarticles, great, but I really think it's going to take more rewriting than actual salvaging. - Bobet 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation required!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khawaja_Shamsuddin_Azeemi#Bias

It will be good to have your opinion on my concern regarding your knowledge and neutrality(biased)on the above link.

Sir Allan Green
Thanks for your comment. Here are some links to the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/198863.stm http://www.markmccrum.com/pages/journalism/my_london_village.htm http://www.ukcia.org/news/shownewsarticle.php?articleid=6277

I had assumed that he had left practice after the incident and retired form public life. Now that you have brought my attention to his continuing career in private practice I will update the artice with your information and whatever else comes up on Google. Richard75 15:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Torsten Scholl CSD tag
Hi. "This is a resume, not an encyclopedia entry" does not equate to the CSD A7 criteria "no assertion of notability"! I've changed the tag to undefined. I see you've been asked to take it easy on the CSD tagging in the past so I'll just repeat that advice. No reply needed unless you disagree. (That's not to say I think it's a good article, just that it doesn't in any way match the criterion you specified). Cheers. --kingboyk 21:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu group
Thanks for moving the Hindu group publications article to the appropriate location. --Pournami 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

City of Inverness Highland Games copyvio questioin
Congratulations on having sharp eyes to pick that out! I did some further investigation myself and it appears that the material is okay. The following was just posted (by myself) on the articles talk page:


 * I checked with the Inverness Highland Games web site and found that the main contact person for the Games is greynolds@invernesshighlandgames.com. I wrote to him (from my private account, not through Wikipedia - that way I would know for sure who I was writing to) and just received a reply which I would be glad to forward to any Wikipedia admin concerned with this copyright situation. In his reply, the writer acknowledged being the poster and identified himself as Gerry Reynolds who is the Secretary of the Inverness Games. He further states that he was in fact the original author of the material.

Greynolds177 had also posted some info on the Inverness Games on the Highland games article. I removed it to the Highland Games wikicity where I am an admin and where promotional material of that kind is not only permitted, but welcome. JFPerry 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

dzogchen: reality and dreams
Hi, thanks for merging my content into the main page. Please take a look what I did today with both pages (the redirect and dzogchen). --Klimov 19:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
has been blocked for a period of 24 hours. Thanks. You friendly admin, ¡Dustimagic!  ( T / C ) 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Fallacy
Thank you Harmil for the very nice clean up of the historical fallacy site. Nice work. chris 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christian Prophecy
You're right. The problem is I didn't know the correct phrase in English. I changed a bit my vote on the issue. CCMichalZ 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit on Talk:ECC (Extremely Cool Cats)
An anon editor (66.90.11.226) edited this page, removing your old comment, claiming the group is real, and signing as you. I assume it's not really you, but I thought I'd tell you just in case. BryanG 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On context and stubs
Your point and advice are well taken. I shall firstly create small introductory, contextual stubs for each of the pages that I have created. Guess I've over-reached; I'm trying to tackle and populate some 80 odd pages at a time ie the complete representation of Swallowtail (Papilionid) butterflies in India. Thanks for the advice, regards, AshLin 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy
It is not supported by those refrences because no where in the quote does Mr. Lindsey claim that this will happen in the 1980's nore does he say that it is a prophecy, infact in full context it is clear that he is speculating about possible outcomes based on his personal beliefs not making a divinly inspired claim. If we are going to be nitpickers about weatehr things came true or not and if we are going to call things prophecties that are clearly not then we shoudl at least use primary sources and respect the lanugaue of the so called perditions in determining if they are true or not. (incidenlt that was me who reverted your revert from an IP my browser crashed and I had not realised it logged me out, infact I had not realised my original edit had even gone through and been reverted, as it crashed while waiting for the save to load) Dalf | Talk 05:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Diva software AfD
Harmil, Thanks for your comments on the Diva AfD. I do appreciate your point of view; it is software still under development, so IMHO, it is too early for an article. I've made related comments on the AfD page. &mdash;ERcheck @ 03:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points in the AfD discussion. I'll keep watch on the developing discussion.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing links in people's comments
Sure I can keep user pages un-touch. Is there any discussion somewhere about this issue? Gadig 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Substub prod
Well I agree with you that it probably didn't contain much information, it shouldn't have been PROD'd. The notenglish template allows for an AfD after two weeks of being listed. I don't see what the big rush is to delete it, seeing as how no one as of yet quite knows what it said. If I read the title correct, it was "translation", which probably didn't add anything to en.wiki that we didn't already have, but since there is a process for it, so I figure, why not let it run its course. Pepsidrinka 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Drosera anglica
Hi. Thank you for taking an interest in the Drosera anglica page. You shuffled around several pictures and added a distribution map. As I thought a picture of the carnivory of this plant was important for the article and thus merited a prominent position, I returned such a picture back to this section from the gallery. This time I substituted a picture that shows the carnivory from a closer distance, and hopefully this picture will seem more suitable to you. You also added a USDA distribution map. Since the distribution of this plant is in no ways limited to the US (It is, after all, called the English Sundew), a US distribution map seems out of place to me, especially considering the many British, Canadian, and other non-US readers that Wikipedia has. Ultimately, I would like to put together some sort of world distribution map. Until then, I would rather see another a shot of the plant or its flower than an unspecific map of a fraction of the plant's distributional range. I have only made the aformentioned picture change (even though the other pictures you moved were unique and directly relevant to the article content) as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and therefore did not want to proceed without first discussing this with you. Comments? --NoahElhardt 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris Langewis
This page is a work in progress. I have invited experts from around the globe to contribute to this effort, and I am sure we will soon see a more substantial entry. If you google Chris Langewis, you will find more than 500 references. Believe me when I say that there are few men in the translation/localization industry who have been more influential than Chris in the past 25 years. Just have a little patience and his article will speak for itself.

War and Peace
I still think we need reference to the study guides, even if it is one link to an offsite link of the various guides available. To some, such a reference will be what they are looking for to take their reading further. I do take your point about advertising though. We need to find a way to include reference, with out being partial and without becoming a list. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Except
That's an admin being unreasonable. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Kepple
The claim of the person who added the prod tag is that Andrew Kepple is non-notable (NN). However, on Google he gets substantially more hits than I would expect from someone who isn't notable. TMST and its expanded form are too general, so that's not a good benchmark.

My inclination is to say that he's notable, but the article needs SERIOUS cleanup. -Harmil 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be surprizing that a guy who makes many NN internet things should get many google hits. Google "crzrussian" or "crazyrussian" and you'll all my WP edits. Don't mean I'm notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did both actually - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted a reply. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AT&T call monitoring
deleting my addition at the top of the page is inappropriate to me because I find that the priorities associated with the current positioning of the news about at&t's privacy policy to be questionable. Why have information that might be extremely important to an investor, customer, or critic far down on the page after a belabored explanation of company history? it is more significant that at&t sells customer data for the government to determine whether or not you're likely to commit a crime than most of the other information. Fundamentally, the action indicates more about company character than the historical sequence prioritized above it. Please, for clarity and relevance replace what you have deleted. 66.190.80.201 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two paragraphs, because when I added the paragraph regarding the USA Today story, I had mistakenly placed the story as having come out in 2005 instead of 2006. When I saw what you added, which essentially was a condensed version of what I had written, including a link to the story, I merged the paragraphs. If what I wrote to merge the paragraphs does not convey the meaning of the two separate paragraphs, edit as you wish. KansasCity 21:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Inverness Highland Games
I just now did some further work on the Inverness Highland Games page and removed the cleanup tag which you had prieviously attached. Let me know if there is anything else you feel needs to be done with the article? Maybe it could use a stub tag?

The article itself is important. There are several hundred Highland Games events worldwide and many of them merit inclusion in the Wikipedia as they have been held for years - sometimes decades - and can draw several tens of thousands of visitors. The Inverness Games article is, to my knowledge, the first Wikipedia article on a Highland Games event. I will be adding at least a few more this summer and maybe, when there are enough, a Highland Games category can be built.

The Inverness article was originally added by the principal organizer of those Games and, no surprise, was somewhat promotional in its tone. That's his job. The participation in Wikipedia of people such as him should be seen as most welcome. JFPerry 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

NSA call database
I'm the one who removed the CNN web poll from the article. I've just done so again—web polls are unscientific and have absolutely no statistical value because they don't use a random sampling. Anyone knowledgeable in statistics will confirm this. It's misleading to cite it in an academic context, such as an encyclopedia article. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 03:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Upload
Harmil, you aided me before in properly editing/uploading an image, I ran accross this image but the photographer and "claimed" owner dont seem to match however perhaps you could look into it for me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CassMann.jpg Thanks Bruce12 05:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Golden State Project
How is a group with famous rappers who each have their own pages on wikipedia not a notable project? Plenty of albums, movies and TV shows that have never been officially released or even finished but include famous people are also on here. Are you gonna track all those down too? MrBlondNYC 08:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Also you claim I deleted the tags without explanation. Check the discussion tab of the article which I wrote right after I deleted the tags. MrBlondNYC 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Perl 6 removal
You removed the following paragraph from Perl 6, saying it was "dangerously misleading": Also, in Perl 6, one can define grammars that encapsulate related regexes, analogously to how classes encapsulate methods, or how modules encapsulate subroutines. In what way is it "dangerously misleading"? Both Larry Wall and Damian Conway have made this analogy to explain how the grammar keyword works, and it exists in the specification. Perhaps you would be okay with the paragraph if the word regexes were changed to subrules? --TreyHarris 10:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't understand your response. The diff clearly shows the paragraph above being deleted at the bottom of the diff. You said, "the text that you quoted is text that I merged up into the preceding paragraph"; but I don't see where that happened. Go to Perl 6 and search for the word "grammar"; it only occurs three times, and none of those cases explain the grammar/[rule|token|regex] analogy with class/method and module/subroutine. --TreyHarris 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23_Perl -- RevRagnarok 17:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on - Barry -
Please remember that two wrongs don't make a right. Although I agree with a great deal of the substance of what you say regarding the technical points of the languages and TIOBE, I don't think there's any excuse for making personal attacks in edit summaries or on talk pages. Please stick to the facts and stay cool. Thanks, and happy editing! --Craig Stuntz 13:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't typically reproduce my replies on my own talk page, but in this case, since I'm being accused of personal attacks, I think it's important to have a record:

I'll try to review what I type for tone, but neither of the notes that you left are what I would term "attacks" in any way. I'm not saying, "this asshole is going around spewing his filth," etc. I'm saying, "User:-Barry- has been taking heat for injecting these flawed benchmark results in Perl, so he's come here. Good faith credulity is strained." (that's the exact edit summary that you cited as an "attack".)

The fact of the matter is that I have made gestures to try to get -Barry- to be a contributor, rather than a POV-pusher on Perl. I've re-written his contributions (against my better judgement, when others have simply reverted them) to try to make them more encyclopedic he has then immediately reverted those attempts at compromise. I've consistently been the "good cop" when he is being directly attacked, asking others to cease their personal attacks, and I was even the one who brought the mediation page to his attention. 

So, I guess I'm asking for you to help me by explaining what it is that you consider "attackish", here. Help me to understand how you're interpreting policy so that I can bring that to my own work.

Thanks. -Harmil 14:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * -Harmil 14:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, nothing I wrote should be taken as implying that -Barry-'s conduct has been better than yours. Mostly I'm asking you to assume good faith, even in cases where someone's actions might appear to you to be based on bad faith. Benchmarking, for example, is rampantly misunderstood even by programmers experienced in other areas. As the (sanitized) saying goes, never attribute to bad faith that which can adequately be explained by inexperience. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that -Barry- says what he does not out of bad faith but because he genuinely believes he's doing the correct thing. If this is the case then saying "good faith credibility is strained" is likely to convince him that he is correct, whereas sticking to the facts may not convince him but will at least be clear to other editors. IMHO. --Craig Stuntz 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

John W. Campbell, Jr.
Hi -- you tagged John W. Campbell, Jr. as requiring cleanup in February. I've done a bit of cleanup on it; could you take a look and let me know what else would be needed to at least remove the tag? Thanks. Mike Christie 01:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the GA nomination! That's a better response than I'd hoped for.  I appreciate it.  Mike Christie 16:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)