User talk:Bgoldnyxnet

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

Jean Marie Stine[edit]

Hi you contributed briefly to this article, do you know if this is the same person who writes self help boooks such as [1], oor whether that's a different person with the same name? This article seems to have been written by the person themselves. Merkinsmum 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I do know that Jean Marie has written books. The Science-Fiction books under that name are by her.

There's a limit to what I could say in the article proper, but Jean Marie was born Henry Eugene Stine. When I first met him (around 1966) he was thin, very intense, and heavily into Objectivism. Also a flaming wacko.

I've only met Jean Marie a few times since she became a woman, but my impression is that she is still thin, perhaps a little less intense -- and still a flaming wacko. I remember meeting her at the 1984 World SF Convention, looking at this tall, thin woman, hearing her talk, and thinking, "same voice, same flake". Of course, it's the flaming wackos that accomplish everything significant in the world. I have two papers published in computing journals; she has written dozens of books (some of them porno), and edited several anthologies.

Yes, I suspect that JM wrote part of her own article. There's still a little bit of coyness there about the Henry Stine identity and other gender matters. For example, the article says 'Her novel "Season of the Witch"...' But that book was originally published under the name Henry Stine. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I removed all the information about the film that you put into the musical's article. If you want to add any of this information it goes into the film article: Fiddler on the Roof (film). Note, however, that you need to support your statements with citations to WP:Reliable sources. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I reviewed the change that you tried to make to the article back in July. First of all, please note that a footnote WAS added explaining the meaning of frum as part of Fruma. As for the rest, there are many reasons why it is inappropriate. Let's start with the the objection that it is WP:Original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. If you can find a reliable published source that contains the information that you wish to add, please add a far more concise version of what you were trying to say and write it in a clear manner so that a general reader will easily understand how it belongs in the Fiddler article. See here. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Craig Huey, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. As I recall, I was trying to do something complicated, which the preview simply wouldn't show. The only way to find out the effect of my change was to save it and view the page. After several tries, I finally gave up and did it the simple way, with an image. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hueytermlimits.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Hueytermlimits.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Apparently the image was less useful to the article on Huey than I thought it would be. Since it's not being used in any article, the fair use claim no longer applies.Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Death does not release us[edit]

Not even if we move. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

California elections, November 2012[edit]

Hi, I am not sure whose "talk" page I should reply on, so I will do both. I did not change initiative back to initiated. The original phrase was initiated state statute, which redirected to the initiative page. I had no issue with your change, except that when you made your change the link no longer worked. I only removed the word "state", as it seemed redundant for a page on a California election, and then added the brackets to link initiative and statute to their respective pages. This is the current text in question: initiative statute. As you can see it is still initiatIVE and not initiatED. If this didn't answer your question, please let me know.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall1190 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I almost forgot... as I agreed with your change, I also changed the two initiated constitutional amendment to read initiative constitutional amendment. The later redirects to initiative, but the former has it's own page. This also seems redundant as constitutional amendments are covered along with statutes on the initiative page.

hi but which article `Uncletomwood (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Odd, but not peculiar for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Odd, but not peculiar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd, but not peculiar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Uncletomwood (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Metacompiler may have broken the syntax by modifying 5 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Change in the template[edit]

Sometime in the past 24 hours, it appears that the HTML template for Wiki pages changed. It used to be that if you had just arrived at a page and hit the tab key, the focus would move to the "Search" text control. Now it jumps around among various links; I don't know if Search is even in the tab order; if it is, it's more than 10 tabs from the start.

I actually preferred the old layout (with the Search control on the left, similar to "Modern") but switched to the new layout ("Vector") because of the convenience of using the tab key that way. (As a sometime webpage designer/maintainer, my personal opinion is that the primary type-in area should have the focus as soon as the page is loaded.) If I can't have that, I guess I'll switch to "Modern," but I would really like to see this restored. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, this is not really an issue for administrators to fix. We are only "administrators" in the sense that we have tools to manage users and articles (block/unblock people, delete/restore/protect pages, and so on). We don't actually manage the web site as a whole, that is something that the site developers manage. But technical problems, such as what you're describing, can be addressed at WP:VP/T (that is the Village Pump page for "technical" issues). If your issue is caused by a bug, someone there may have information on that. If it's a deliberate change that should be undone, you might gain support for that as well which can then be passed along to the developers (and they may even participate in the discussion directly). But either way I think that is the best place for you to get help on this. -- Atama 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added a note at WP:VP/T. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Hay I see you contributed to compiler-compiler and to the metacompiler page adding a CWIC topic

It seams that the originator of the metacompiler topic intended it to include forth or at least is using the forth idea of a metacompiler saying that because it compiles it's self I.E.

Defining itself and translating itself this way constitutes the meta-step that sets a metacompiler apart from other compiler-compilers

A common saying on FORTH sites. Especially "meta step" The fact is that LISP compiles it's self practically the same identical way as Forth does.

Self-hosting compilers are common. Most general purpose language compilers are self-hosted. I pointed out that many of the compilers I wrote or worked on, compiled themselves. And actually the initial development steps of self hosting compilers are the same as described. I was head of the Language Development Group at Kontron electronics. Many console games were written using our compilers. All of the compilers were written in an extended PASCAL. Which bootstrapped from scratch. Most were cross compilers for processors our In Circuit Emulators supported. Actually I started with FutureData that was bought be GenRad and then sold to Kontron.

A self-hosting metacompiler is a lot easier to bootstrap up then a general purpose language.

Historically metacompilers were compiler compilers. Compiler compiler was the general term used in the 60's Then yacc yuked that up being a parser generator. And calling it's self Yet Another Compiler Compiler. Compared to the compiler compilers of 60's yacc is only hacc. Half a compiler compiler. My term was Half Ass Compiler Compiler. There are implementation of yacc that use yacc to compile it's self. So metacompiler (old version) hasn't really separates it's self from other compiler compilers. Sense the start of this dispute I have added referenced definition of meta compilers. The [Sci-Tech Dictionary McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th edition, published by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.] clearly states " A metacompilers is a compiler that is used chiefly to construct compilers for other programming languages."

We have gotten into a flame war on the metacompiler talk page over the defining feature:

"The feature that sets a metacompiler apart from a standard compiler-compiler is that a metacompiler is written in its own language and translates itself."
Defining itself and translating itself this way constitutes the meta-step that sets a metacompiler apart from other compiler-compilers

It's true that a metacompiler usually defines it's self. But not all metacompiler were self-hosted for various reasons. Damon really went ballistic when I found a metacompiler written in PL/1 in a reference he gave to prove his position. Going on about me misconstruing his I do not know what.

The subjects of compiler-compiler, syntax-directed-compiler, and metacompiler are all closely related. And at one time were the same thing. The distinguishing factors are needed if they are really separate subjects.

There have been many metacompiler over the years that are called metacompilers. Some like BOOK1, BOOK2, and CWIC are meta compilers An early metacompiler that did not call it's self a meta compiler was:

"A compiler-building system developed by Brooker and Morris" Brooker and Morris, Communications of the ACM Volume 7 Issue 7, July 1964 It has a parsing language "BNF" and a machine description language "MDL" There an intermediate "GSL" generation Strategy Language.

CWIC was based partly on Schorre's META compilers and partly on LISP2 developed at SDC The syntax language includes features from TREE META. It's unclear if Schorre worked on TREE META. The Stanford Research paper does not list Schorre. TREE MATA used *1 and *2 to address the tree legs of a pattern. Similar to CWICs parse stack referencing. TREEMETA used the same :<node name> operator but used [<number>] to specify the number of branches were CWIC used !<number>.

I implemented an extended CWIC compiler compiler on a DEC-System-10 between 1969 and 72. I added a machine description language and created a pseudo operation language (macro like functions using most of the CWIC generator production language). I am very familiar with how CWIC worked. I have taken to using TREE META terminology using unparse rules instead of pattern matching as used in CWIC documentation. The rules are actually recursive EVAL(ADD[EVAL(X),EVAL(Y)])=> has EVAL calling it's self on the tree legs and returning local variables in X and Y. That is a feature of tree meta also except tree meta doesn't have local variables.

I started an RFC and probably did it wrong as there has been no comments other then our bickering.

Val Schorre submitted papers in the SegForth ACM group in the 80s. Val said forth is not a meta compiler on his web site (now gone so can't be referanced).

This field of compilers is confusing enough with out contradictory terminology. One is that parsers and metacompiler use a formal grammar. When a formal grammar is a generative or production grammar. That is a formal grammar is rules that define the productions of valid strings of a language. A parser does just the opposite. it analyzes strings for correctness. The way that it is stated is true. But it is confusing. I,E. in Parser:

Parsing or syntactic analysis is the process of analysing a string of symbols, either in natural language or in computer languages, according to the rules of a formal grammar.

The following I think is a better. Changing according to conforming implies a looser association of the processes letting them be opposites.

Parsing or syntactic analysis is the process of analysing a string of symbols, either in natural language or in computer languages, conforming to the rules of a formal grammar.

The line:

A metacompiler is defined by a set of grammar production rules defining itself, written in its own specialized language.

Note the in that line grammar links to formal grammar. production links to Production (computer science). This is gibberish he has linked to grammar production rule topics. And there nothing that defines the semantics of the language. Damon claims he has a Masters degree in Computer Science. When in my RFC I point out that a formal grammar is not used by metacompilers he goes and adds the production link, pointing at basicly a formal grammar description and says he fixed my objection to formal grammar link.

I changed your CWIC generator example a bit. It uses recursion to crall the trees and load token in registers. Quite a but different. But not complicated by any optimizations.

A third opinion is desperately needed. You can see my proposed version at Metacompiler edit. — Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

META I and META II: written by who?[edit]

You posted on my user page. Not my talk page: We can talk on my talk page or where ever. I moved your question and am puting my response here.

META I and META II: written by who? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I did maintenance on CWIC up until 1975, then in 1982-3 wrote a version called Swift that compiled to "c." It was never classified. It was proprietary to SDC (later bought by Unisys). Bgoldnyxnet (talk)

Hay that's cool. You mean CWIC was never classified? Or Swift?

META I and META II were written by Val. D. Schorre. Schorre was one of the original authors of CWIC. Didn't you know Val?

What sort of maintenance did you do on CWIC?

It may have been proprietary but Erwin Book handed out manuals at an ACM meeting I attended. I got 2 separate manuals on CWIC. One on the SYNTAX language and the other on the GENERATOR language. I do not remember if I got a MOL 360 manual. I just recently download the ACM paper on CWIC and found out the SYNTAX and GENERATOR were separate compilers. SLIC was a single compiler having four grammars The four grammars were SYNTAX, GENERATORs that were almost identical to CWIC's SYNTAX and GENERATOR languages except generators planted PSEUDO code into sections. PSEUDO code added a level of abstraction in code generation. Targeting different processors ment rewriting the PSEUDO instruction. Usually the PSEUDO instruction set for a language was small. The MACHOP language is used to define of instruction of the target processor. The PSEUDO instructions and MACHOPs were function. PSEUDO instruction were planted sequentially in lists attached to sections and executed in order when the section was flushed. PSEUDO instruction were written in the generator production language. But had regular parameters lists not unparsing rules. They were coded as if an assembler macro. A very advanced macro. MACHOPs were used in the pseudo instruction to output binary machine code for a target processor. pseudo code appeared to be macros containing assembly instructions. Never got around to doing the ISO (In Sequence Optimization). I am working on a new version that will use a C type block structures. I.E. { } instead of .BEGIN .END reserved words if, then else, until etc. I have a bit of work bring my machine definition language up to date. We didn't have multiple scaled indexing as in the IA-86 instruction set. I like the TREE META terminology unparse rule for the tree pattern matching. I implemented SLIC while working as a computer operator at Cerritos Collage. But I really never worked as an operator. They needed a systems programmer and systems administrator when we got the DEC-System-10. They agreed in writing when I took the job that software I developed on my own time I owned. As A student before getting the job I developed a batch job operatoring system for the Honeywell H200. Initially used for student jobs. It improved student job throughput by over a magnitude in number of student jobs ran per hour. After writing the H200 operatoring system the instructors got me the operator job. The Collage did not have a position of a systems programmer which was really my function. My operatoring system eliminated the need for an operator. The H200 was shared between instruction and administration (Data Center) use. Data center had the machine from midnight to noon. Instruction from noon to midnight. There was a bit of friction that my operatoring system eliminated, Especially when I was working for the data center. Data Center programmers didn't wait til the next day to run test compiles. A data center programmer could submit a test run any time. There was plenty of computer time to go around. Back then software wasn't patented. SLIC basicly made the code output generation more readable.

What's your take on FORTH being a metacompiler.I do not care if FORTH is or isnot a metacompiler. My problem is that the FORTH described metacompiltion is just a self-hosting compiler. If accepted then almost every common languages to day would be metacompiler by the definition. --Steamerandy (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

When I tried to vote in the Wikimedia foundation poll, I got to the "Secure Poll" page, Which told me I was not on the eligible voter list, then provided a supposed link to a help page on user eligibility and how to be added to the voter list.

But the link is broken: voter help page Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The link you provided wasn't broken. Maybe it was fixed. If it's still broken on your end, and if it helps, I'm apparently eligible to vote, then throw up another {{help me}}. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 06:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I dream of horses I'm having trouble determining if I qualify. I have well over 20 edits[1] if you count every single change I made, but some of those changes were either correcting errors I'd introduced earlier, or a series of incremental edits so I could be sure that what I'd done would format correctly before going on to another section of the same article. I'm pretty sure that the total of all my edits is over 300 -- hard to see how it could not be, if I made 20 in 6 months and I've been active since 2005. I have sent email to about this.

  1. ^ And that's even though I spent a month being sick, out of town, or in the hospital during those three months

Proposed deletion of Nominal (engineering)[edit]

Hello, Bgoldnyxnet. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Nominal (engineering), for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Nominal (engineering)[edit]

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Bgoldnyxnet, thanks for creating Nominal (engineering)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Bgoldnyxnet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Bgoldnyxnet! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:10, Saturday, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Plasma (physics)[edit]

I appreciate your last edit on this subject but to be courteous I wish to explain my revert of your recent edit on Plasma (physics) here.[2]

Yes. Lightning is generated by electric currents along a Plasma channel, and on Earth plasma channels are most frequently encountered in lightning storms. However, this disputed text was very carefully written to reflect that plasma on Earth is generated and does not naturally exist freely as a state of matter. I.e. It dissipates and reverts back to a gas. Plasma cannot be sustained as a state without the energy that creates it. The statement here is also supported below, where its says "Partially ionised plasma is popularly understood, for example, as bright neon signs or lightning storms,..." and is cited. Also this is further backed up in the statement under section 'Generation of artificial plasma', saying: "... there are several means for its generation, however, one principle is common to all of them: there must be energy input to produce and sustain it." (also cited)

Note: Much time has been spent here stablising this text, which was regularly hacked or challenged often due to poor understanding of the subject and the imprecise statements. Also perhaps reconsider using the article's talkpage if you do think the wording or meaning is incorrect. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)