User talk:Ruakh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pages I find useful[edit]

Archives of old discussions[edit]

There are archives of old discussions at User talk:Ruakh/Archive 1 and User talk:Ruakh/Archive 2. They're not complete; when I was a new Wikipedian I sometimes deleted old discussions (which you're not supposed to do, but I didn't know that at the time), and sometimes discussions have gotten moved back and forth between this page and another user's talk-page and ended up there (or, confusingly, partly here and partly there). If there's something specific you're looking for, you might need to check this page's history.

If you'd like to revive an old discussion, please do so on this page, not at the archive; either move or copy the existing discussion from the archive, or start a fresh discussion here on the same topic.

Ruakh 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Godel number[edit]

You just edited that article. Unfortunately, the definition is completely screwy; it makes no sense to say that a function from S to N is computable, if elements of S have not already been assigned Godel numbers. And a computable function cannot output random elements, unless they have been assigned Godel numbers. So neither the function f nor its inverse could possibly be computable if S is anything other than the natural numbers.

If you are interested in fixing the article, please feel free (nobody else has stepped up, and I am putting it off). There is already some discussion on the talk page in the section Definition. I'm writing because minor changes you make might get lost if and when the article is rewritten, and that would be a waste of your time. CMummert · talk 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow, good point. Thanks for the heads-up. :-) —Ruakh 06:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons[edit]

Thanks for bringing it up on Ligulem's talk page. I was looking for comments regarding this and noticed that you brought it up before I did :) Let us wait for a reply. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Complements[edit]

Please pardon my vigorous discussion on your article about defective verbs, but I enjoy linguistics very much and am no doubt somewhat obstinate. I believe we may be talking about two different things with the same word. I thought, at first, that you were talking about a subject, object, or verb complement, but, if "beware" be the same as "be ware", "ware" would itself be a complement to the subject. By the definition I have known, a complement is something which modifies the meaning of the sentence and may not be removed without losing meaning. If that be so, a complement of a complement would cease to be a complement to the sentence. But, perhaps I err in that. If you can enlighten me, I am eager to learn.
p.s. I hope I am not too forward in posting in your personal section, but if so please feel welcome to tell me on my talk page --Jr mints 02:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize; your comments are quite welcome, both here and at Talk:Defective verb. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I minded. :-/ —Ruakh 02:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Scare Quotes[edit]

Please see my note at the Disputed English grammar talk page.

--Selket 08:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry, I'm watching that page. :-) —Ruakh 09:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Restrictiveness[edit]

Perhaps you could change restrictiveness so a preposition it does not end with (so it does not end with a preposition). Also, what happens if John has more than one wife? Then beautiful might be restrictive if his other wives are ugly, or even average in appearance. As the article stands now, there is a systemic bias in favour of monogamist societies. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Preposition stranding is a feature of all dialects of Standard English, at all but the most formal registers. We've no reason to choose an awkward non-preposition-stranding construction over a natural preposition-stranding one. (I don't mind non-preposition-stranding constructions when they sound natural-but-formal; with your edit, however, the result was quite clearly an unnatural attempt at avoiding preposition stranding. Your attempt was valiant, but it just didn't work out.)
Even if John is a monogamist, it's possible for him to have had multiple wives, in which case the modifier might be restrictive ("John and Harry have each been married twice, once to a beautiful woman and once to an intelligent one. John's beautiful wife was absolutely insufferable, but the other three wives were all wonderful."); nonetheless, I think all readers will understand the example, and the article already includes the caveat "presumably" to acknowledge that there are other possibilities. (By the way, in my experience people don't usually use "beautiful" as a restrictive modifier in discussing people, because that's rude: it implies that other potential referents are not beautiful. Therefore, I think "John's beautiful wife" generally implies that John has one wife and that she's beautiful, even in a social context where the listener couldn't assume that John has at most one wife.) Your change struck me as a bit silly; Wife should be careful to acknowledge the varied nature of marriage, but at Restrictiveness the point is not worth a full parenthetical note in mid-sentence.
Ruakh 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

French verbs: perfect or compound imperative[edit]

The problem with the "French verbs" page as it stands is that the English phrase "have done it", which supposedly translates "aie-le fait", is not an imperative at all, and it fails to cast even a glimmer of light on the meaning or function of the French construction. The scruple you voice about an ambiguity ("have it done" = "fais-le faire") is surely far outweighed by this fatal problem. In any case the ambiguity is easily resolved once the construction is placed within its proper context, which is to order someone to do something by a given point in the future, e.g. "Aie-le fait avant demain!" which you would naturally translate as "Have it done by tomorrow!".

I've checked Hawkins & Towell, French Grammar and Usage (2nd Edition, London 2001) which backs me up on this, calling the construction the "compound imperative":

Compound imperatives are formed from the imperative of avoir or être, as appropriate, and a past participle. They are used to express orders that will be fulfilled in the future: Ayez tapé cette lettre avant la fin de la journée. (p.271)

There are further examples at http://www.ruishi.info/forum/simple/index.php?t38635.html:

l'impératif passé Son emploi est peu fréquent. Il indique qu'un fait devra être accompli avant un moment déterminé du futur. - Sois parti d'ici au plus tard à 5h15! - Ayez fini avant midi!

If you place "fais-le faire" likewise in context, the difference is clear. The first 10 google results for this phrase included several instances of "Fais-le faire par les autres!" and one each of "fais-le faire par un autre" and "fais-le faire par des gens plus qualifiés". In English, this would be rendered most naturally as "Get somebody else to do it!", and "Get someone better qualified to do it!"

Gracchus babeuf 04:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree about the meaning of the French construction, but disagree that have it done is an appropriate translation; it's almost coincidental that it has a similar meaning to have done it. ("Have it done by tomorrow" means "cause it to be complete by tomorrow", while "have done it by tomorrow" means "do it before tomorrow". It's like how "I have my homework done" and "I have done my homework" have similar meanings, but are completely different constructions.) —Ruakh 07:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see we are in agreement about the French side of this issue, but there seems to be no movement on the English side. Your "have done it" is, as I said, not an imperative construction in English, and it is not even acceptable as a sentence, whereas the French "Aie-le fait!" is an imperative sentence. Your phrase is only part of an indicative sentence. Your problem, I believe, arises from abstraction: the French construction, and its English translation, require further contextualisation, preferably an adverbial phrase that sets a time limit on the action to be performed. My suggestion "Have it done by tomorrow!" is an English imperative sentence, it provides the sense of the French sentence and it helps to clarify the use of the perfect imperative construction. I would be interested in hearing of any alternative translations, but offering a verb phrase from an indicative sentence to translate an imperative sentence is not an option. The nearest I can find is "Get it done!", but to me that suggests "Fais-le faire!" (i.e. by another agency) more strongly than "Have it done (by tomorrow)!"

So there you have it: on the one hand (the present text) an English non-sentence that belongs to a larger indicative sentence and does nothing to explain the French construction, and on the other hand (my suggestion) an English imperative sentence that elucidates the function in the same way as the French construction. In any case, there's no need to stop at one sentence: I've already provided other material above that would be useful as further explanation. Granted, the French construction is not often heard, but it seems that if it is to be mentioned at all, it's worth getting it right. Gracchus babeuf 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Heteronormativity[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please participate in a respectful and civil way, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

  • I don't consider attempting to increase the accuracy of a sentence to be "messing" with it and don't appreciate the implication. CovenantD 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, then, please read full sentences before attempting to increase their accuracy! You did increase its accuracy in some regards, but you took a sentence that was perfectly sensible (but with some inaccuracies) and replaced it with one that did not make sense (since the "as" phrase no longer connected to any part of the sentence) and that — insofar as it could be interpreted sensibly — said the exact opposite of what was meant (since it made it sound like Norvell described Smith's comments as "politically correct nuttiness", when in fact he described criticism of Smith's comments as "politically correct nuttiness"). —Ruakh 18:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Berry's Paradox[edit]

Yes, I take your point. The reason why it is a paradox is that there should be a number that fits the description when the sentence is analysed mathematically. However, I fear that the description that already exists is not sufficient for the lay person to understand this paradox. I for one have no idea what a 'Naive set theory' is.

Perhaps we could reach a compromise. I will re-enter my explanation with a slight modification. I will state that what distinguishes a paradox from mere hypothetical descriptions amounting to nothing, like the one you mentioned, is that something must match the given statement...unlike 'the smallest positive integer less than zero', which is in itself contradictary.

Saurabhb 16:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not O.K. with an "explanation" that doesn't actually explain the problem; but, I've rewritten the section to explain the paradox without using the word "set". Is this acceptable? —Ruakh 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can describe infinity in under ten words (7). Also, it says: "I can do what I can do, plus one". There are better paradoxes to muddle ourselves in.Qe2eqe 21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

hpochondria[edit]

yes that WAS me [xyaasehshalomx] :) sorry!xxx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by XYaAsehShalomX (talkcontribs) 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

No worries, just wanted to make sure. :-) —Ruakh 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Redlink[edit]

Thanks for fixing my terrible typo.[1] CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Singular they[edit]

Keep up the improvement of Singular they. I like your changes so far. JStripes 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong summary[edit]

The edit summary on the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adjective&curid=37512&diff=120694744&oldid=120605569 doesn't reflect the actual edit. (I guess it's not a huge deal in this particular case, but still. Misleading edit summaries are bad.) —RuakhTALK 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I spotted this and changed the summary, a short way into the run, but still worth bringing to my attention. Rich Farmbrough 22:37 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Redirection of Expletive deleted to Expletive[edit]

Hi, you wrote in your edit summary to this edit "rv: there was a decision to merge these articles. you can't just ignore that decision; you have to convince people otherwise." Can you please point me to that decision? I am having trouble finding it. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Expletive deleted, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expletive_deleted&action=history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expletive&action=history. There wasn't too much discussion, but one person proposed the merge by posting a comment, a different person proposed it by adding a merge template, yet another person actually performed the merge, and a number of people saw the various proposals without objecting. It doesn't seem like too many people cared very much — but if you wanted to object, you had your chance. This being Wikipedia, there's no end of new chances, but to reverse a previous decision, you really have to start a new discussion. Who knows, maybe no one will care enough to argue, and you'll be able to go ahead with it. :-) —Ruakh 21:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish clitics[edit]

I saw you changed one of the Spanish examples in the Polypersonal agreement article, arguing that "Spanish clitics are actually *written* as separate words when they appear before the verb". Just to clarify, I'm a Spaniard and while it's true that in modern speech the usual is to say se lo dio for "he/she gave it to him/her/them", restricting the use of suffixed pronoun clitics to imperative and non-finite forms, it is perfectly possible and grammatical to say dióselo. It merely has a certain archaic/literary feel to it, because nowadays such forms are commonly found only in literature, particularly in classic works or in modern ones written in an archaicizing or solemn tone (much like the use of "thou" in English). In fact, the very form dióselo is used, for example, in Don Quixote (in chapter 54) and in translations of the Bible. 213.37.6.65 00:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks. :-)
Even so, I think it's better to use normal text when possible (unless there's a specific reason not to), and to explicitly indicate when not-normal text is being used for whatever reason.
Ruakh 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Math Trolls[edit]

I had no intention of causing anger or frustration among the math gods of the Wikipedia. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to seek clarification on bijection/cardinality as it applied to practical programming, and I still have no real idea what sort of paradox is introduced by not having bijection (I assume its exclusion causes paradoxical results based on my previous 1-semester study of mathematical logic in school). Thanks to your comments (positive/supportive) and the other's slap about being incoherent (not so positive/supportive), I realized that my initial inclusion of "one-to-one correspondence" was overkill on finite sets, allowing me to recommend to a client a coding solution with a faster execution time than coding for strict cardinality testing as she had initially inquired about. As someone who has spent a lifetime tutoring students - especially math students - who were in over their heads, I have always been leery of defining groups of people with less education or experience than myself as "trolls", and I am warning students in general that making a serious query on any Wikipedia math article discussion page is liable to produce damage to their self-esteem and discouragement of further study. Hotfeba 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you shouldn't let one bad experience prevent you from ever discussing things on Wikipedia, or cause you to advise others against doing so. That said, keep in mind that Wikipedia talk-pages are intended for improving articles rather than for discussing topics (except for discussing the topic with the aim of improving the article — but the connection needs to be clear between the discussion and how it will benefit the article), so your advice to your students might be good for another reason: editors are likely to be annoyed at basic questions whose answers won't improve the article. (In my experience, students of a subject who ask questions on talk-pages very often have no idea what will actually benefit the article, and this can frustrate other editors.)
Secondly, don't worry too much about the troll comment. There's no centralized group of Wikipedians that keeps track of who gets accused of what, so if you're not a troll and don't act like one, you won't find that other people think you're a troll just because of JRSpriggs's comment.
Thirdly, to answer your (implicit) question: it's not that the bijection approach resolves any paradoxes. It's just that there's no other way to decide whether two infinite sets are equal in size. In other words, without the bijection approach, set "size" is only meaningful for finite sets; the bijection approach lets us generalize the concept into infinite sets. Does that make sense?
By the way, re-reading your earlier comments, I think some of your confusion might result from two different senses of the term "one-to-one". Note that "one-to-one function" means merely "injective function", while "one-to-one correspondence" means "bijective function" ("function that's both one-to-one/injective and onto/surjective").
Ruakh 02:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your explanation of the mathematics all makes sense, as it did on the math talk page. The reason for my "Ahh, I see" and "Apologies" comments was that the light was going on, and I included my choose-without-replacement remark as an example of using a simpler one-to-one function compared to bijection/cardinality as my understanding improved during the discussion (I have admitted on my user page to being in Mensa International in the past, indicating a potential as a fast learner). For that, the discussion was very helpful to me, less the rising nastiness of the other person who offered no explanations, just increasingly baiting comments. It does not matter to me if an editor wishing to act as administrator can copy key points out of a text book to create or maintain an article, but one does not need to get nasty in response to an evidently reasoned analysis of a question and the apparent agreement of other people discussing that question. At least, your responses (as well as Hardy's) to my writing seemed perfectly reasonable to me, and I was able to respond to your comments with reason in return. I would apologize to the nasty one on his talk page for causing an apparently emotional response to me pointing out what logic I could find in his short comments, but based on his stated presumptions of me as someone he does not wish to know, I fear that would only enflame him within his wikiworldview, and I see no reason for me to engage in a Wiki flame war over this. Others' comments about his abrupt editing behavior and his responses to them tell me that I am not the only biting victim of his out there.
It is difficult to ponder how to improve articles unless one already has a firm grasp on precisely why an article is written the way it is in the first place. I hope that one day the phoenix of wisdom will spring from the heads of all students so they may ask whatever questions that meet the sprigg test for reasonability. An objection by programmers who have not done a theoretical approach to computing theory as a mathematical logic problem is that an apparently dogmatic statement of mathematical certainty must either be translated unerringly into code, or one must justify to the team why it was not. It therefore seems that it is more self-instructive for programmers to develop their own theory of mathematics that does not require allowances for unobtainable results like infinite sets than it is for programmers to swallow theoretical mathematics whole and then spend the greater part of one's life figuring out just how to proceed in coding, or even if it's worth coding at all.
For a person to emit a condescending comment such as "Don't feed the troll", one must first think it, and then one must believe it to be correct or believe it to be damaging, or both. To emit such a comment in the role of administrator after other persons have apparently agreed a topic had been clarified and settled is especially noteworthy for being predjudicial yet at the same time petty. Having just finished reading WP:NOFEEDING and not being completely clueless of the guard/prisoner role-play studies done in one psych department basement, I am a little bit more literate today about staying here than I was yesterday, and now I understand my place, sir. I go now. Time to talk and advise the others. Hotfeba 05:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I am touched that he took time to analyze the intellectual dishonesty, confusion, and/or stupidity he alleges of me, clearly all violations on his part of WP:CIVIL. I am not going to take the bait on the math talk page. Instead, I have a way of dealing with this through the law as it applies to the Internet within my state's jurisdiction and to the creation of new law in response to new situations. Hotfeba 01:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Birthday paradox[edit]

Over at talk:birthday paadox you put back the useless commentry I removed, and removed some useless commentry yourself. Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qe2eqe (talkcontribs) 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

I reverted your removal of comments because, as I mentioned on your talk-page, on Wikipedia we don't delete other people's talk-page comments (except in exceptional cases of vandalism and/or harassment).
I most certainly did not remove any "useless commentry [sic]". What are you referring to?
Ruakh 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputes in English grammar[edit]

In my talk message here, I asked for feedback, not reverts. I'm sure you put a lot of original research into this section, but it was very unclear and unwieldy. Your use of the term "arguments" is ambiguous. It could mean "argument" as in logic and argumentation, or it could mean "disputes" or "disagreement". I don't think it was meant as the former, or if it was, most of the examples do not amount to examples of arguments. They are examples of what causes disagreement. Please discuss on talk before reverting. Otheus 10:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comment.
Your edits, while billed as clean-up, in fact significantly altered the meaning of the section. I took this to mean that the section had been unclear and you therefore misunderstood it, so I reverted and set about clarifying it so it wouldn't cause confusion.
If you in fact intended to significantly alter the meaning of the section, then I'm sorry; but you shouldn't have billed your edits as clean-up if that's not what they were trying to be.
Ruakh 12:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I intended them to be a cleanup. What I don't understand is how they "significantly altered the meaning". I saw you made some subsequent revisions and that these revisions were quite helpful. Thank you. --Otheus 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Nixon[edit]

I thought it was pretty clear. If you cannot prove that it was Nixon's list, then it means that you are drawing your own conclusion of that film's joke. That's original research. Maybe it would have been better if I said "until", instead of "unless".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Spelling and grammatical errors (French)[edit]

Hi, Mister Tagger. So you come from Israel and know my language so well as to doubt what I and the Académie française say? Speaks volumes... This is trolling and wiki doesn't need trolls. ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnPrionsaBeag (talkcontribs) 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

What the heck are you talking about? —Ruakh 18:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alef[edit]

I thought I should've explained my edit in talk, sorry for not doing so. However, I stand by the edit (although I've modified point #2 to be less confusing) and will explain it here. Basically there are only three ways in which alef can be written, but in general it can be either a sound or an em kri'a (if we go by Hebrew grammar). Here are the points:

1. What it means is that the alef will take the shape of the vowel that its nikud dictates. Let's take your example, the word לֶאֱכֹל. Analyzing letter by letter:

a. The lamed has a segol, therefore will be written as Le.
b. The alef has a hataf segol, also a modern e sound. Therefore, it will be an e sound. However, it also follows a vowel sound, therefore the e will be preceeded by an apostrophe (so now it's 'e).
c. The khaf has a holam haser, therefore it will be kho.
d. The lamed has no sound, therefore it's l.
e. The result is: Le'ekhol. Not leeechol.

2. Actually there are lots of words where alef is an em kri'a. Take for example: rofe (רופא), matza (found) (מצא), aramatic words and expressions like אליבא דכלא עלמא, etc.

3. I thought we had consensus, but feel free to add 'no consensus yet' to the end. Anyway, it should indeed be preceeded by an apostrophe and not written as one. Take the first case of le'ekhol. If the alef in it was written as a vowel, the word would've look like le'khol. Same with Be'er Sheva (Be'r Sheva?), etc.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think the same edit should be made to the letter ayin which is very similar, but I'll wait for your reply first.

Makes sense if you look at it that way. However, I think each letter (with the possible exception of completely non-disputed ones, like mem, nun, etc.) should be supported by examples (can use well-known Hebrew place names and words) for each possible transliteration. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Be as an auxiliary verb[edit]

Hello. The claim that be is always an auxiliary verb comes from A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Geoffrey Pullum and Rodney Huddleston, the same two authors of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. They identify two syntactic properties for distinguishing auxiliary from other ("lexical") verbs, namely that they can be directly negated and that they swap places with the subject to form a question. Lexical verbs, conversely, require an auxiliary to be negated and to form a question. The book lists be, have, and do as the three non-modal auxiliaries. The authors also explain what they call "dually-classified verbs" (do, have, need, dare) which behave as both auxiliary and lexical verbs—be is not one of them. The reasoning they use for classifying be as always auxiliary is that it always demonstrates the syntactic properties of an auxiliary verb and never the properties of a lexical verb—i.e., it can always be directly negated, and always inverts itself with the subject in an interrogative clause. This is the crucial passage:

Conversely, be qualifies as an auxiliary verb not just when it is marking progressive aspect or passive voice, but also when it is the only verb in the clause, taking a complement with the form of an AdjP [adjective phrase], NP [noun phrase], etc. Its behaviour with respect to inversion and negation is the same in this construction as in those where it is marking progressive aspect or passive voice. [42]

They then give an example of be as an aspect marker and be as the only verb in the clause, and the syntax is indeed the same for the affirmative, interrogative, and negative clauses. Their reasoning seems sound to me. I'm sorry I don't have a more accessible reference, but this is the only source I have at my disposal that treats the subject in-depth. Strad 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish irregular verbs[edit]

I undid your reversion on the article above. I don't know how well you know spanish, but the ending for words that have "yo" in front of the verb is "o", such as "yo hablo" (I talk), "yo nado" (I swim), and "yo bebo" (I drink). If yo is before the word, the ending is not a. That is for words that have "he, she or you" in front, like "el nada" (he swims) and "usted habla" (you talk). I hope I explained it well enough, since its kind of hard to explain. If you have any questions tell me on my talk page. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 20:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Spanish verbs are conjugated not only to agree with their subjects in person and number, but also to indicate their own tense, mood, and aspect. In this case, what you're missing is the mood; those examples are in the subjunctive mood, and miento is in the indicative. (You can tell it's the subjunctive because later in the line, we have que él mienta instead of que él miente; also, the fact that we're including que in the conjugations is a big hint, since while there are many conjugation tables that use que to introduce a subjunctive form, there are none that use it to introduce indicative forms.) I hope that's clear; if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. :-) —Ruakh 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I noticed, and I removed the note from the person I warned. Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot: Edit summary.[edit]

I don't suppose your edit summary could be more explicit, saying what tag it's adding? —RuakhTALK 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point! I think I've just changed the bot to do that. Thanks for the suggestion!!! -- 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) —Ruakh 18:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Adjective[edit]

Hey...I had added http://www.englishforums.com to above page. Choose your words, ain't a spm. EF is not commercial and is well know English language forum where the most teachers and native speakers are very active. EF even permits anon posting, so you don't have to register to ask for any help...So, EF is more than helpful to general public, everybody can come and ask for free help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.165.182.233 (talkcontribs) 11:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

If you're trying to advertise a site — even a non-commercial site — by adding links to it from articles that don't benefit from the link (for example, linking from Adjective to the main page of a site about English grammar), I'd say you're spamming on its behalf. Maybe your intentions are good, but the result is the same as if the site owners were paying you for the service. —Ruakh 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Birthday attack[edit]

Agreed on the superscripts. Thanks for noting that! Mmernex 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Pearl-Qatar[edit]

Yes, you're right. I've fixed the article. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor indeed misunderstood[edit]

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good... please don't let me be misunderstood" - Elvis Costello RCSB 19:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Table at Birthday paradox[edit]

Regarding the table with values for the probability of two people having the same birthday if there are n people in the room. There is a dispute between 3 users it seems, but the change that you two are reverting back to is incorrect either way. If you look at how the function is mathematically defined, it will in fact be undefined for n=366, also there is no value of n for which p(n)=1 If you think about it logically and ignore the fact that the table is for the function p(n) then the number must be 367 for two people to have the same birthday as logic tells you to include leap years, even if the function doesn't include it for the sake of simplicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.163.51 (talk) 16:41, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

No, you're still not understanding. You talk about how the function is "mathematically defined", but you're looking at the wrong thing: that formula isn't a mathematical definition, but a mathematical calculation. We're defining the function as "The probability that, given n random and independent events, each with the same 365 equally likely outcomes, two (or more) of the events have the same outcome." The formula is explicitly labeled as applying only to the case where n ≤ 365, but the function itself is well-defined for all non-negative integers n. Do you understand now? —Ruakh 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

spanish verbs page[edit]

i'm not sure why only 'see' should be italicized. [2] 74.128.180.241 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Me either, really, but that's always how we do it. (I think it would make more sense to italicize the article name, actually.) —Ruakh 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I see, i didn't realize that was the standard way of doing so. 74.128.180.241 00:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

power means inequality[edit]

thank you for moving my contribution concerning power means inequality, i copied it from an user supbpage of mine, and pasted it in a wrong place.--Ghazer 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks for adding it! :-) —Ruakh 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Syntax, markup languages, and whatever[edit]

Ruakh, was this edit summary comment of yours (“partial rv: I *do* understand XHTML, and use it on my own sites, but this is simpler/prettier for non-technical editors, and MediaWiki converts it to proper XHTML.”) directed at me? I don’t care about what method is used. I only give a rip about the end result. As I wrote here on the Kilogram talk page that I’ve been trying to take care of obscure new paragraphs that follow superscripted lines. Now that I just looked at that discussion topic, I see that SMcCandlish has a hard-on over the methodology being used. Is that who you’re arguing with? What’s going on? Greg L (my talk) 20:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not at you; it was a reply to SMcCandlish's edit summary (one previous). —Ruakh 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

XHTML[edit]

Replied at my talk page; short ver.: Yes, p inside li is fine, but is redundant, and p not closing is not fine. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Biblical[edit]

I saw where last January you discussed on a MOS talkpage, the question of whether the word "Biblical" should be capitalized like all other proper adjectives; you may wish to take part in the RFC on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) —Ruakh 21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

edit war[edit]

So, we're in an edit war. I won't take it personally. In my opinion the difference comes down to prescriptivism versus descriptivism. American Heritage is descriptivist, even accepting comprise to be a reasonable substitute for "compose"! I know that they do this because there are a lot of people that talk like this. As a prescrivist, I am totally against this; my preferred sources are OED and Fowler. If I were to frame the debate, I would say it's a decision between writing concisely and writing as people speak. MisterSheik 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically this is a revert war, but I think it's a rather fun one; we're not being mean, and it's not a matter of content. So no, I'm not taking it personally, either. You should know that the OED (like essentially all modern dictionaries) is primarily descriptive, and it also accepts comprise meaning "compose" (comprise sense 8 "Of things", part b "To constitute, make up, compose").
At any rate, pure "prescriptivism" ("I can decide that something is incorrect even if it's a fundamental part of English as everyone has ever spoken it") and pure "descriptivism" ("if someone has ever said it, then obviously it's correct English") are both obvious nonsense. For our purposes, of course we want to write in Standard English, which is largely defined by how people actually speak, but is also somewhat defined by how people think people are supposed to speak: so, a blend of prescriptivism and descriptivism. I'd also like our writing to be logical (and I do think "examples include" is logical, and can explain why if you wish), which is also a prescriptivist view (one that most people share, though a linguist would point out that linguistic logic is a lot more flexible than one might expect, as anyone knows who speaks both Standard English and a language with negative concord).
Ruakh 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Double redirect[edit]

Dear Ruakh,

Thank You very much for Your message. I thought of fixing the double redirect itself, but I thought that redirect pages can be modified only by an administrator. Now I have just read the trick in Wikipedia:Double redirects#How to fix a double redirect, thus I have just fixed a double redirect of mine: Sireniki Eskimo (people) -> Sireniki Eskimo people -> Sireniki Eskimos.

I saw meanwhile You have fixed another doulbe redirect chain for me (Sirenik language -> Sireniki Eskimo (language) -> Sireniki Eskimo language), thank You for that.

Best wishes,

Physis (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you really Bukharian[edit]

Are you Bukharian Jewish or Muslim? LeeMulod333 13:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply; I'm currently without Internet at home, so my wiki-ing has become sporadic.) My father's family are Bukharim, so halakhically speaking, I am as well. (My mother's family are Galician Jews, though.) I certainly identify as Bukhari more than I do as Galician, but seeing as I don't at all identify as Galician, that doesn't say very much. :-P   If you're curious, I think I use "Bukhari", "Bukharan", and "Bukharian" more or less interchangeably, but I'm not sure. I certainly never say "Bukhori" or "Bukharic", though. Regardless, my point is that it's irrelevant what word(s) you and I use; Google says that "Bukharan" is more common than "Bukharian" by a factor of more than two. —Ruakh 01:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also Bukharian Jewish. My mom is part Russian but that doesn't mean anything to me. I identify as Bukharian and I have never heard of Bukharan. It matters what the community calls itself, not google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeMulod333 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

nothing up my sleeve number[edit]

I found your edit on the mark and the edit summary gave me a chuckle. What on earth is Wikipedia coming to? If you find any other preposterous claims of POV, let me know; I've started a section on my user page for such foolishness. --C S (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

 :-) —Ruakh 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

mKR edits[edit]

It looks like you changed my definition section, right?
And you think those 3 references don't belong in the article, right?
I know you have a right to edit my article. I'm just trying to figure out what's happening.
I'm right in the middle of editing the article to satisfy the critics who are trying to remove it.

Rhmccullough (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I changed the definition section; I don't know what this "my" is that you refer to. ;-)     (Note: if my changes introduced any errors, I'm sorry, and please do correct them. I was trying to put the article into encyclopedia format, and there wasn't a one-to-one mapping from the previous format to encyclopedia format.) Those references are fine, provided they're attached to statements that they actually support; but the article about mKR can't make a claim about it, and attach a reference that doesn't say anything about mKR. To do so would be misleading, not to say deceptive. (For comparison, imagine that the article about George W. Bush labeled him a Democrat and explained what that meant, and gave as its "reference" a work published in 1978 that explains what "Democrat" means and doesn't mention Bush. The article would then have two problems: a false statement, and a reference that doesn't support the statement it's attached to. Presumably the statements in mKR (programming language) are true, but that only solves one of the problems. Do you see what I mean?) —Ruakh 11:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know what a "Lead" was, until one of your editors posted a note on the article this morning. Thanks for fixing it. I understand what you mean about references. Rhmccullough (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to join WikiProject Ohio[edit]

I'm not very active on Wikipedia anymore, but thank you, automated process, for the invitation. :-)   —Ruakh 19:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Leftsophere and wikt:leftosphere[edit]

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

English grammar[edit]

As a frequent (>20 edits) contributor, would you like to weigh in at Talk:English_grammar#Suggest_splitting? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The first Wikipedian meetup in Ohio[edit]

Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yehonathan Gatro[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Yehonathan Gatro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, When I put in the tag, it was of notability, I couldn't find much on Google for the person (news.google.com/archivesearch, not just websites that promote music, but rather those that prove some notability). I believe it was closed on copyright violation of the text being a replica from www.youtube.com/user/FALLONCO (I did not check for copy vio, so I don't know about this). If you believe that this is not the case and you can prove notability, you can try re-creating the page but with sufficient citations; if you go through the help sections, you may also find out how to reinstate a deleted page since the reasons for deletion weren't sufficient or it happened prematurely.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[[[Mirliton]][edit]

Hello, you may be interested in contributing at the discussion above about its clean-up. Thanks for your help, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Book of Job[edit]

Thank you for correcting my mistake.

I wish, however, to draw your attention to WP:5P. A mistake needs not to be labeled gratuitously as vandalism.

Keep up the good work! --Dampinograaf (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean any offense. The result looked so crazy that it seemed like obvious vandalism, but on second look, I see how it could have been caused by hitting Ctrl+V a few times too many. —Ruakh 02:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Voseo[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Voseo. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voseo. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[3][edit]

Haha! Widsith (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You know you're a wiki addict when . . . —Ruakh 00:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete audio[edit]

Hi,

Please note that your audio posting at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media:En-us-Arkansas.ogg fails to play completely.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.170.15 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it's a bug in the OGG player. There's nothing I can do about it. But thanks for trying to let me know. :-)   —Ruakh 00:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Wikipedia:Racism[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Wikipedia:Racism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Wikipedia:Racism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Wikipedia:Racism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fences&Windows 00:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really "constribute" to it; I merely created it. :-P   I don't care if you delete it. —Ruakh 14:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

AfD nomination for English conjugation tables[edit]

Since you have edited the article or its talk page, I'd like to let you know that the article English conjugation tables has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English conjugation tables. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I agree with everything you say in your AfD nomination. —Ruakh 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Ruakh/Weaksauce[edit]

I have restored the page "Weaksauce" witn its history and moved them to User talk:Ruakh/Weaksauce per your request. Since the text at Wikisource is independent of this, and takes only the idea, I wasn't sure whether preserving this was needed, but if it is desirable there it is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)