User talk:Harmil/Archive 05

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjgm84 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 18 July 2006

== Festa del Redentore                                                                                                                                        va cherchez quelquun vous treculer fills de pd

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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moenada (talk • contribs) 06:51, 19 July 2006

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

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)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambo freeman (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2006

aLUnARED
You noted the ALUNARED entry for Wikipedia was a violation of myspace. As a former member of that band (and original writer Jean Djinni) being involved in the project as well, we have full rights to the information posted to that article as I am the writer of the MySpace article in question (I am JJD WAX / Jack Duckworth) and Jean was involved in the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJDwax (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 July 2006

I am a former member of aLUnARED, and I have permission from the original author (another former member of aLUnARED, JJD WAX, who's posted above) to cross post the band's myspace content to this page. It's a simple matter of distributing labour among us in maintaining archival pages about this now-defunct band. Please restore the page. It will be updated with more original content shortly; for now it's something of a placeholder/work in progress.

Geez you people are quick to preemptively discredit and delete. There must be a more efficient way to deal with these sorts of issues...--Jeandjinni 08:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

you were in the band for under a year and didnt even play on any of the full lengths. i think you should just shut the fuck up........

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip solo (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 August 2006

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.218.222 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 August 2006

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianmjones44 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 12 August 2006

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)

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)

Babylon 5
The issues had been discussed. Look no further than Talk:Babylon_5 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)

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)

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 . Hopefully this will correct the issue.  Tlmclain 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q Original (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 September 2006


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

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)

Tiamat
You wrote: Your recent edit to Tiamat (disambiguation) is not actually in keeping with the disambiguation style outlined at 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)

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)

Don't delete Candace Von
I got the info personally from Candace Von —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigkhrisdogg (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 October 2006

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)

Women Fully Clothed


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quode (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 October 2006

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 (), 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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Greyhawk_Supplement_1975.jpg
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 or , 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)

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).

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).

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)

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)

"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)

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]

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)

Re : Coa
Done, now a disamb page. Indeed it was turned into something else that met the speedy deletion criteria. My apologies for the error. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Problematic deletions
Your point about a need to more closely scrutinize changes of articles into redirects for takeover of legitimate articles for improper purposes is an excellent point. Wondering if it would be possible for someone to construct a bot that would detect insertions of redirect language into an article. Perhaps a more ambitious bot could filter out changes by an administrator, articles with an associated AfD with a result of Delete, Merge, Redirect, or similar, etc., to focus on potential problem redirects. Might be worth raising at WP:PUMP. Best --Shirahadasha 02:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Native American Tribal Entities have been updated
On the WP:IPNA I gave a heads-up RE: the update and asked for folks to help create redirect from there to the articles. So, with that, you interested in updating the List of Alaska Native Tribal Entities page? In addition, I have created a list of past Federal Register notices with "Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs" at Federally recognized tribes/Former Federal Register versions, so if the past listings ever come into question, it can be referenced at this sub-page for the appropriate volume/number, and then head to the GPO's site to read the actual document. CJLippert 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

World of Warcraft.
Greetings.

"A topic which resulted in legal involvement from one gay rights group should not be cited before a topic which resulted in legal attention from the nation of China."

Why? Marc 23:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Numa (opera)
In an edit summary, a while back, you stated that this was a "published opera". Is that right? Admittedly, it's listed in Georges Bizet's article, but no other evidence can be found for this opera actually existing. It's not in the standard reference works such as Grove Music Online or Viking. All Google gives is Wikipedia, other-language Wikipedias, and various mirrors. Does this really exist? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images
The use of non-free images on your user page does not have adaquate justification as per fair-use. Using them in this manner likely fails our guidelines for Non-free content. –Gunslinger47 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg
Hello, Harmil. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:1992 Rapture.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Harmil. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to update the license. It's been changed to non-free promotional implying the images is of non-free status.  You're right that the proper license doesn't seem so straight forward.  If I'm reading this correctly, you took a photo of a poster with an anonymous submitter placed in a public location?  Consider PD-because or PD-self.  This is basically the same as graffiti where the artists don't retain copyright. –Gunslinger47 05:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input on Image:1992 Rapture.jpg. I'd be worried about marking it PD-because, just because of the ambiguity surrounding that. Certainly, the tag that's been put there requesting a smaller version makes sense, and I'll scale it down for that reason. But yes, you have the general idea of what happened. This was part of a Korean cult movement that happened around 1992, and for some reason had a strong offshoot in New England in the U.S. These posters appeared all over the area, and lasted for a long time (in some cases, more than 10 years). The original creator of the posters is probably not something we can find out, so I presumed that we need to treat this as a case of fair use. Is there a policy somewhere that suggests that that's not the case? -Harmil 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is, it likely won't be easy to find. Looking virtually all the graffiti pictures, they are labeled as PD.  I think this would fall under the same category. –Gunslinger47 21:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:1992 Rapture.jpg
Hello Harmil, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:1992 Rapture.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Harmil. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You should label this images as PD-because before you leave. At the moment, it's labeled as non-free content, and thus further subject to all that bureaucracy you mentioned. :) –Gunslinger47 18:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

List of tequila brands
{{   ==List of tequila brands== A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article List of tequila brands, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WarthogDemon 21:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Old Friend, New Problem
Hello Sir, you helped me a long time ago in establishing/verifying a page for Austin Ryan Fuentes however in the last few days its come under attack as several people, mostly from USC have placed an AfD on in after more then a year online and in my view justified existance, can you please vist the AfD forum regarding this issue and make a positive/keep comment I would certainly appreciate it, in the mean time I am going to try to contact Mr. Fuentes himself to get his imput, his grandfathers page, John Duran which I also helped restore is also under AfD albeit with less "personal-attacks" I am happy to make my argument on both pages but I think I've fallen on deft ears and frankly I think that it is personal for whatever reason (moreso in regards to Fuentes). In regards to Fuentes if he should not be in existance then other persons such as Cassandra Mann should not either for she although having a similar social-status has done far less for society and has no personal wealth of her own or notable philanthropy or credit in a movie(s) yet she has her page and is oddly enough maintained by the same person trying to AfD my contributions Thanks Bruce12 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)



Struck thru comment
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:PZO1000_180.jpeg. 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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 non-free media 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. ShakespeareFan00 19:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:PZO1000 180.jpeg
You tagged Image:PZO1000 180.jpeg as having no fair use rationale... not that it really needs a strong one since it's a book cover used in the article about the book, but it already has one. Did you not see it, or do you feel that it's inadequate in some way? Either way, I'm on hiatus for the foreseeable future, and just happened to hit the front page to search for something when I saw that you'd left me a message. If you feel like reverting your change, great, otherwise... *shrug* -Harmil 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads,up. Detagged and comment above struck thru.. ShakespeareFan00 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Gajdusek.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gajdusek.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's Bring Back The Good Old Days
You wrote: specifically because of this kind of over-zealous attack on useful ... content -- Amen! It's just unbelievable how Wikipedia changed from a friendly, collaborative place to a bureaucrat's wet dream within a matter of months. Maikel 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Any idea whether it's possible to stop Rettetast by filing a complaint about his behaviour? Maikel 07:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I just don't interact with Wikipedia enough these days to take a strong stand on this. If you want to help, hit "Random article" a until you come upon an article that has no citations, and add some. That's what I think the admins who are focusing on photographs such as the one I added should do. -Harmil 03:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was just wondering if you had an idea how to deal with this.  Maikel 09:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Homer's Phobia question
Hi. I just noticed your question on the article talk page. Are you sure that the commas are necessary there? They don't seem necessary to me, but I don't have the grammar terminology to explain why. Zagalejo 07:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maddox's commentary on the Nokia E70
Editor, I noticed your addition of maddox's commentary on Orbitz. We have a similiar situation with the Nokia E70 page, though there are editors that will not have maddox's mention of the phone included in the article. I pointed to this article as precedent, to which the other editor replied that it shouldn't be mentioned here either. If you have any thoughts, please volunteer them on the talk page. Thanks.--Loodog 01:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Attribution
I changed it, thanks for catching that. See here. --Digon3 talk 15:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Romanian films
PLease help out the List of Romanian films thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Canonfire!
An article that you have been involved in editing, Canonfire!, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Gavin Collins 07:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Olman
An article that you have been involved in editing, Olman, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Gavin Collins 08:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure
I note the removal of the notability (books) from the article together with your edit summary which said "I'm going to contend that being the subject of multiple sequels published decades later is grounds for notability and be bold here. Which are the notable sequels, and what are the reliable sources which you are aware of that demonstrate notability? I admit not being an expert in this subject, but I am not sure what is being said or cited in the article that makes this module notable. If you can provide me with some evidence of notability, that would be useful for my understanding of this topic. --Gavin Collins 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded to you at Talk:Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure. --Gavin Collins 10:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lg greyhawk arch.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lg greyhawk arch.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes 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 non-free media 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. Gavin Collins 22:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Cauldron (Shackled City)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cauldron (Shackled City), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Gavin Collins 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cauldron (Shackled City)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cauldron (Shackled City), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Gavin Collins 10:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Greyhawk
Harmil, here's something you may be interested in helping with.--Robbstrd 21:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Cauldron (Shackled City)
The reference you added to Cauldron (Shackled City) has caused me to revise my opinion. I have struck-out my Delete vote on the AfD discussion. BreathingMeat 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Trainunion
Were you he? --Turnipface 22:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're asking if I'm User:Trainunion, the answer is no. I've had only one Sockpuppet in the years that I've interacted with Wikipedia, and that account was merely for the purpose of explicitly associating my real-world name with a handful of edits (as was noted on its user-page), as I wanted any conflict of interest that I might carry along with me in editing articles related to my industry to be clear and up-front. My recent edits to many of the articles edited by User:Gavin.Collins have been an attempt to clean up what I consider the wholesale misuse of administrative templates. In many cases, those templates are correct, and I leave them alone. In many cases, they are not, and appear to be added mechanically as a sort of wrote action. -Harmil 22:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but my conscience tells me to look at these things. And in particular, your claim that Dragon is a secondary source when removing templates is, on the whole, quite dodgy. Yeah, sure, it was a great supplement for people playing the games of its publishers; but the magazine's focus was on that for much of its history (I go back to 1979 on this).  It's not so great when establishing notability due to its lack of independence. --Turnipface 23:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon as a secondary source
This is something that I've been discussing in a number of places recently. Dragon does *not* always constitute a secondary source. However, when you look at the articles they range from clearly secondary sources: those that evaluate the state of the industry, the history of various fictional elements and games, etc. (the core beliefs series comes to mind); to the clearly primary sources: those that are original game mechanics or fiction. When you have a single magazine that has acted as the center of the genre for 35 years, it's hard to nail down exactly what it is. Certainly it has been a primary source, but I'm trying to note those places where it has been reference as a secondary source. One great example that comes to mind is The Shadow Over D&D which I used as a secondary source in Lovecraftian horror, and was entirely a survey of the history of Lovecraftian elements and direct inclusion in D&D.

PS: When you have such concerns, please come right out and question me on them. Please don't assume I'm a sockpuppet because you disagree with me. -Harmil 23:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant (Dungeons & Dragons)
Delete? Really? Articles for deletion/Plant (Dungeons & Dragons) seems to have been fairly evenly split between the keep/merge and delete camp. In terms of consensus (since AfD isn't about voting, but achieving consensus), I'm curious why you felt that the consensus was delete. -Harmil 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Though I wrote delete, I essentially closed it as merge/delete, with the comment I tacked on. The article itself was almost entirely a list, there was very little info to merge. The idea is that this information can easily be rewritten into the Creature type article without needing to see the original page. In this way, the data will be merged, avoiding GFDL issues, and making everyone happy :). That said, if you want the original intro to the page, I will get it for you, though that does cause some legal problems (the aforementioned GFDL issues).  Prodego  talk  20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a problem with any merge. The GFDL requires that a history be maintained of who wrote what, thus the page history. But if User:A writes and intro, and then that page is merged into another by User:B, the history says User:B wrote User:A's work, which violates the GFDL. This is often ignored, but with such a small amount of info it can't hurt. Mostly it is convenience, delete it now it won't need to be deleted later, and there is nothing on it that could assist in merging, so why keep it?  Prodego  talk  20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly, and that is what is usually done (and why that is done). About the redirect: I don't have a problem with it, though I do question the likelihood of "Plant (Dungeons & Dragons)" ever being typed in the search box. Prodego  talk  20:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zones of EverQuest
Of course, the main EverQuest article is fine, as it is notable to the real world and have third-party sources, including one mentioning how real-world traders of EverQuest is richer than another country. However, the pure fictional articles like Zones of EverQuest have little relevance outside of EverQuest and is poorly sourced (at least when I first came to it).

Being a popular video game does not make these fictional sub-articles notable, as anyone who does not play it would still not care for it. Else articles from World of Warcraft and RuneScape would not be deleted left and right.

If you really want to keep these articles, I recommend working on getting third-party sources (and not one from another game site), or someone else may end up nominating these articles for AfD again. I wish you good luck. IAmSasori 14:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The source you provided appears to be more relevant to EverQuest than Zones of EverQuest. While it is acceptable to use it for that one quote in the Zones of EverQuest article, there is still many more in that large table in the Zones section of the article that requires references.  However, for sources, it would be very hard to find a third-party reference for it (An example such as: "In the game of EverQuest, players may find wonders and uniqueness in the Planes of Mischief.").


 * One is a good start, but more is still needed for the article to be considered acceptable. IAmSasori 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is why I moved the sources administrative template down into the zones section... yes? Are you just mistaking me for an advocate of the article? If so, disabuse yourself of that idea. I'm interested in improving any article which lacks sourcing. That it needs more sourcing is certainly clear. -Harmil 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. It would do good for you.


 * And I am not the only one with problems with the article, as the consensus ended with No consensus, not a Keep. IAmSasori 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What?! Where did I fail to assume good faith?! This conversation is getting stranger by the second. Can we just drop it? I don't care about the article that much. -Harmil 22:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You assumed that I assumed you are an advocate of the article and told me to reject an idea, questioning my faith. IAmSasori 22:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Forsaken
Of the changes, I think that only the redrawing for Chinese market is interesting. It should be mentioned on the main Warcraft article. Otherwise, the page does not pass notability for me. I have had articles deleted, and console myself with the knowledge that the information will not be lost to mankind, it will only make it a tiny bit harder to search the internet for it. AnteaterZot 07:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Everybody's got a topic they know is important, but Wikipedia can't take our word for it; it must have some sources demonstrating real world notability. You found one source, which is good, but it needs one more. The article can always be recreated when more sources are found. It's not like the World of Warcraft article is going to be deleted. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't express an opinion on that one. I did suggest keeping Playable races in the Warcraft series which was nominated a few minutes ago. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Psilofyr
An article that you have been involved in editing, Psilofyr, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Gavin Collins (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Paul_Stamets_by_oxyporus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Paul_Stamets_by_oxyporus.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding your note at Image:Paul_Stamets_by_oxyporus.jpg, one of the easiest things to do is simply ask him for freely licensed photo. Instructions at WP:COPYREQ if you need them.  howcheng  {chat} 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did just that. No response. See the image discussion page for more details. I've been around Wikipedia for quite a while. I know the ropes. There's not, as far as I can tell, going to be a freely licensed replacement. We can argue that perhaps one day someone might get such an image, but there isn't one today, and we don't know how we'd go about getting one, so I don't see the point of suggesting that the image is "replaceable"... replaceable with what, exactly? -Harmil (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Two-and-a-half years ago, he probably knew nothing about Wikipedia and so didn't bother to respond. Now, I got a photo out of him. I'm negotiating licensing right now, but I expect to have the photo up in the article soon. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Governor David A Paterson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Governor David A Paterson.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nesodak (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)