# User talk:P3d0

Note: I reply on this page, not on your talk page. That allows me to archive entire discussions. If you want me to reply on your talk page too then just say so. --P3d0

## Minor edits

In recognition of your dedicated use of the minor edit, I award you the Minor Barnstar ClockworkSoul

You and the rest of your team have been making excellent and much needed minor edits. In recognition of your dedication, I offer you my sincere gratitude, and this Minor Barnstar. -- [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 07:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

## The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with User:Sietse Snel/Fix common mistakes project, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

## Convective overturn

Thanks for the copyedit, it looks much better. Stirling Newberry 02:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

## It/they

"Team" is singular. It has always been my brief that singular nouns (even if they describe groups) take "it." I couldn't find anything to the contrary in the Style Guide you quoted. What, in particluar, were you referring to? Sunray 07:52, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

A Google search for "collective nouns plural" has about 8 of the first 10 hits explaining that they can be either singular or plural. But the specific link I gave contained this quote:

The collective noun “faculty” can be used in singular and plural senses and can take a singular or plural verb.
• Faculty as a singular group.
• Faculty meaning individual members.
• The geology faculty meets regularly with other science faculties.
• The faculty sometimes disagree among themselves.

I thought the latter case was analogous to our "production team" usage, but the point is debatable. Perhaps your notion of rephrasing the sentence to avoid the issue is a good one, but I'd like to avoid eye-popping constructions like "so as to be able to" if possible. --P3d0 19:41, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Faculty is different because it has both singular and plural senses. Team does not. However, I like the way you have solved the problem with your latest edit. Sunray 01:25, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Ok, seems the problem is solved, but I think you're mistaken about collective nouns. Below are a couple of Google hits for "collective nouns plural team":

"In British usage, however, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The team are playing in the test matches next week."
"When the members are acting as individuals, the collective noun is plural and requires plural verbs and pronouns. [Example:] ...the team shower, change into their street clothes, and head to their air-conditioned homes."

Having said that, I can understand if you believe that the production team is acting as a unit in our particular situation, in which case American convention would require the pronoun should be singular. In any case, if it's going to be this controvercial, we're better off rephrasing it. --P3d0 17:01, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, o.k., I've just learned something. As a Canadian, I thought I knew more about British style than those other North Americans, but here clearly, I had been influenced by American style guides. However, I would say that many British style guides are ambivalent on this topic. The Oxford Style Manual is not available online, so I looked at a variety of journalistic ones. The Times Style and Usage Guide captures the ambiguity in the following way:
collective nouns usually use the singular verb, as with corporate bodies (the company, the Government, the council etc). But this rule is not inviolable; the key is to stick to the singular or plural throughout the story - sentences such as “The committee, which was elected recently, presented their report” are unacceptable.
Then there's the good old BBC PDF version of the BBC News Style Guide:
It is the policy of BBC Radio News that collective nouns should be plural, as in The Government have decided. Other departments, such as BBC Online, have resolved that collective nouns should always be singular, as in The Government has decided. BBC Television News has no policy and uses whichever sounds best in context.The difficulty for writers comes because there is no rule – collective nouns can be either singular or plural.
But I am glad you decided to avoid this whole mess. Your current phrasing will be clear for the vast majority of English-speaking readers whether they come from one side of the Atlantic, or the other, or from down under. Sunray 19:58, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Interesting. It certainly seems like avoiding the issue is most prudent.  :-) Thanks for the links. --P3d0 02:29, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

## J002E3

Thanks for doing the copyedit on the article. Reads much better than it did.Evil MonkeyTalk 20:41, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I reinstated the archive.org link (which you had removed as being 'apparently irrelevant') to Deadhead, and made it more specific. (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Grateful%20dead%20AND%20mediatype%3Aetree%20AND%20collection%3Aetree) is a link directly to the search query "Grateful Dead" in their category "Audio". I think it's pretty relevant, as it's one of the largest collection of prime Dead recordings in existence, and has fast servers. Just letting you know, in case you were interested. Nice to meet you. Pedant 23:07, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

## Giant Impact.jpg

Please, go here. Gbiten 11:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

## 4179 Toutatis

I removed "chaotic", because there is no such group of asteroids. It is true that Toutatis' rotation is chaotic, and as it is a near-Earth object, its orbit is unstable in long term. But "Category" line refers to different groups of asteroids (by orbit): for example Main belt, Apollo, Jupiter trojan asteroids. --Jyril 22:01, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

## Ref and Note

Hi; how do you feel about foot/end-noting with the template names ref and note. I personally prefer note to endnote because a) it's shorter (less typing) and b) it's not possible to get into disagreements about whether a note at the foot of an article is a foot-note or an endnote :-)

Currently note is completely compatible with ref / endnote but formats slightly differently (cite instead of sup and uparrow instead of star). I've announced this on Wikipedia Talk:Footnote3 and will be updating the main page soon if there aren't strong objections. Mozzerati 09:47, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Indeed, I actually prefer note. I think I used endnote only because note was already taken. --P3d0 14:32, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. This category was previously deleted in favor of the article The Greatest Canadian. The category will be deleted again. Please do not re-create it. Thanks. RedWolf 05:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Why? --P3d0 02:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
See CFD Discussion. RedWolf 03:11, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. --P3d0 13:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

## Numbering from one or zero

Thanks for pointing out that numbering from 1 can be implemented just as efficiently. I have been on the point of adding this myself, but hesitated, expecting a POV war from the C adepts. Long before C existed, I implemented a memory allocation and array handling system using the method you indicate. It only excludes address 0 to be included in an array, but that is generally not used anyway for application data. −Woodstone 08:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

## Architecture of Btrieve

Yep, that's correct :-) Thanks for your assistance! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## {{current}} "revert war"

Hello P3d0, I have replied to your comments on my talk page, in case you are not watching my talk page. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 16:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Giant impact picture

Ok. 200.252.229.162 30 June 2005 11:49 (UTC) Gbiten 30 June 2005 11:53 (UTC)

## As at -> As of

Hi - I've just reverted your changes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types. Any reason why you took the grammatically correct "as at" and changed it to the grammatically incorrect "as of"? Those counts were the totals as they were at the time they were counted, not as they were of that time. Grutness...wha? 1 July 2005 00:03 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. --P3d0 July 1, 2005 02:45 (UTC)

## Re: my art

Thanks for that! Glad you like it! :) Grutness...wha?

## Image:Kepler-equation-derivation.png

Loos like a solid black square to me. Am I doing something wrong? Please reply on my talk page. RachelBrown 21:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks ok to me. Does your browser support png files? --P3d0 21:59, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thought it did - it's IE 6.0; I'll try one or two other machines. RachelBrown 08:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Apparently a problem with IE6 RachelBrown 12:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

## Zero

Hi P3d0. Just wanted to say thanks for your kind words about the bit I added to zero's etymology. I'm a new user and don't know how to respond to New Messages yet or how to leave them either, so sorry if this isn't the place. I'll get an account soon, I think. I just haven't gotten around to it. Btw if you're interested in zero and numbers in general the best book I've seen is Georges Ifrah's "A universal history of numbers." (I had to amazon it to get the exact name, and now there's another book there, too: "A universal history of computing." Don't know if this is a minor update or what; I've read "numbers.") It's really universal---peerlessly NPOV---and documented and referenced up the wazoo. It's exhaustive without being exhausting. I wish the figure reproductions were a little better, and sometimes it reads like it was translated from the French (which it probably was; the guy's name sounds Lebanese), but that's where I got the etymology info. I'm going to go back and add this book as a ref for further reading to the zero page as soon as I can figure out footnotes. Btw my name's Ramy, but I don't know if that username's taken yet. Cheers, R.

## Ranking of solar system bodies

Hi. I thought our discussions on Talk:List of Solar system objects by radius were getting a bit voluminous and offtopic, so I'll comment here.

You seem genuinely surprised by my reaction to your remarks, so I'd like to explain myself. This will get pretty verbose, and pretty critical of you, so thanks in advance for reading it all.

Allow me to dissect your remark that prompted my "assume for one minute that I'm not an idiot" comment:

Hmmm. Yes. I believe you said that, once or twice. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ;)

I kept saying it precisely because you never addressed my concerns about the list's exhaustiveness.

Exhaustive: from Dictionary.com : very thorough; exhaustively complete.

If you treat someone as though they don't know the definition of the word "exhaustive" then you can't be terribly surprised when they feel insulted; especially when the definition is as lame and self-referential as this one.

I'm not exactly sure how you think this list of objects could be more thorough or complete.

By including the objects that are currently not included.

If you think the list is incomplete, I wonder why you don't add the information you have (with suitable citation, of course).

Because it's an enormous list that grows weekly. It would require a level of effort and commitment that I don't have the time or inclination to make.

If it's just that you believe that more objects exist out there, yet undiscovered, I think I already addressed that: there's always the potential for larger objects (than Mercury or Jupiter) to exist, but we haven't found any, in the last three hundred years. And even if we do, it's really not too hard to update the list. Meanwhile, these are the largest objects known to exist, outside of fringe speculation and conjecture. If you're basing your objection to rank based on speculation, I don't know what to tell you: I've taken a look at your edits on other pages, and they seemed really sound, so your argument here seems quite puzzling.

This part was quite frustrating. You assume that I'm making a lame argument, and expend half a dozen sentences pounding a strawman to death, despite the fact that I already refuted the argument myself, calling it "spurious". This culminates in the rather condescending statement "your edits on other pages...seemed really sound" (which, at this point, just reads like "look how open-minded I'm being") and that "your argument here seems quite puzzling", even though I have already stated that this is quite emphatically not my argument.

So, in summary, you spent fully three-quarters of your remarks using rhetoric to demolish arguments that I wasn't even making, in a manner that made me appear foolish, rather than trying to reach a consensus or compromise.

This is not usenet. There's no need to quote the other person's remarks, because they are right there on the same page; and the objective is not to win arguments, but to build a good encyclopedia.

No hard feelings. I just didn't want to leave you puzzled as to why I reacted the way I did (rightly or wrongly). --P3d0 21:33, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, P3, I am a little puzzled. The sentence about 'not knowing the meaning of the word' is nothing more than a The Princess Bride quote. I'm sorry if it offended you; in some on-line circles, PB quotations are really common and instantly recognizable, and I really regret now that you took offense to it. My point was simply to get us on the same page about the word "exhaustive": the list can never be complete, so any argument based on 'we can't rank the list because the list isn't complete' just doesn't make sense to me. The same argument would make it impossible to say that (say) Jupiter is the second largest body in the Solar System, because something bigger might be out there.
I'm not exactly certain why you'd say something, then later claim it was a spurious argument, and then criticize me for talking about it. Either it's your opinion, or it's not, but it can't really be both. This is one more thing which causes me to write that your stance on this issue puzzles me. This is also one more reason why I felt it was important to quote you directly, as you freely admit you've changed your argument. In which case, it was impossible NOT to quote you directly when responding to you, whether this is Usenet, Wikipedia, or anywhere else.
Frankly, there already exists a more or less complete list of minor planets on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you want this other list to be "exhaustive" (thus in effect duplicating two Wikipedia lists): it's a listing of heavenly bodies in order of size, not a complete list of minor planets.
You include with your latest comment some stuff about how I think your argument is lame (I don't), how I use rhetoric (not sure when I did that, but I apologize anyway), made [you] appear foolish (which wasn't my intent, and I don't think is the case anyway), made the rather condescending statement "your edits on other pages...seemed really sound" (which was of course meant as a compliment, but was somehow taken by you as a veiled insult), etc, etc. There is more stuff, about how I'm not trying to build a better encyclopedia, and am only interested in winning arguments, but in point of fact, the list you desire already exists here on Wikipedia, and in my years of editing Wikipedia articles, you're the first person I've ever 'argued' with (although I'm not certain how complimenting your edits to Wikipedia articles, making sure I didn't change anything after you deleted my additions to the article in question, etc, constitutes an "argument").
I really hope that there are, as you say, 'no hard feelings', but I suspect there are, after all you've said in your message tonight. I don't want there to be any.--Firsfron 02:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I had started another point-for-point rebuttal, but I just find it extraordinarily frustrating to discuss this issue with you, so I give up. Let's just put this behind us and move forward. I think we both just want what's best for Wikipedia. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. --P3d0 14:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I'm so glad you could be the bigger person, P3. I look forward to reading your future contributions on Wikipedia, and agree we both want what's best for Wikipedia.--Firsfron 21:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

## regarding edit summaries

You must understand that I am something of a niggler; always have been. I constantly think up new problems with my own work to go back and fix, often while I am in the process of posting my previous work, so I am always constantly editing and changing what I do in little tiny ways. Since none of the edits I do is particularly extraordinary, I don't really see the point of posting an edit summary, particularly if, as usually happens, I post fifteen consecutive edits in five minutes. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Serendipodous 18:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Assuming that's an honest question, the point of the edit summaries is so subsequent editors can get an idea of what you've done without opening up the diff for each edit. It's less taxing on the server (and on the other editors!), and much less time consuming. Also, if these really are minor changes, it would be helpful if you could mark them as such. Of course, the last thing I want to do is discourage you, so please do whatever you're comfortable with. --P3d0 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and you're not alone in being a niggler. There's lots of us at wikipedia! Personally I deal with it by doing a lot of previews before submitting. For instance, this edit contains a dozen different little changes. --P3d0 18:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

## Talk:Monty Hall problem

Thanks for chiming in. So long as the earth turns there will be nonbelievers. I just keep on trying different ways of explaining based on the questioner's point of view and thus nudging them towards the truth. If it were that obvious to all then this page wouldn't exist.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 23:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

## RE: Definition of planets

Hi! Thanks for your note and for attempts at balancing the information in the article. I don't think 'share' and 'alongside' are accurate depictions when referring to the orbits of other 'planetary' objects in relation to bona fide planets; they imply 'next to'. Why? Well, all objects have unique orbital elements (e.g., ascending node, perihelion, semimajor axis ...). For example, perhaps trojans share Jupiter's orbit and may do so alongside it, but there are a plethora of objects that have unique paths ... Sedna and Kuiper belt objects, for example. As well, the sentence concerns objects that comprise a star system's planetary system, hence the listing of those objects (and similarities thereof). That's why I think the current edition reads fine. Make sense?

I hope I'm not being difficult. If you observe the edit history for this tidbit, you'll note there was solitary resistance to even including it in the first place (stemming from a complete abiguity for relevant definitions in the the appropriate articles) and I've been trying to correct inaccuracies and add useful/accurate info throughout. To that end, I appreciate your willingness for compromise; please let me know if any of this is off the wall or you've questions. Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 04:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

## Citation issues

You may be interested in reference/citation content/format issues in Talk:Global cooling#Citation format poll (see preceding discussion) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SEWilco#Response. (SEWilco 05:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC))

Hi there! Thanks for your note. Yes: I'm fully aware of the government website you cited. I went about to draw the current flag image out of disappointment that other renderings online were insufficient, particularly regarding the shape of the maple leaf. Anyhow, let me know if you've any questions. Ta! E Pluribus Anthony 09:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure you were aware of the particular image I pointed at, which overlays a grid on the flag and indicates the leaf's proportions to a fairly high accuracy. My impression is that the current SVG doesn't match exactly, though it is certainly good enough to escape all but the most intense scrutiny. --P3d0 03:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Actually, while the flag/grid image may seem to be authoritative, there are varied intepretations of what the true shape of the maple leaf in the flag actually is. While there's the grid in that image, there are other images online that have slightly different shapes: e.g., through extraction of the flag from high-quality EPS versions of the 'Canada' wordmark (where the flag sits above the third a).
Importantly, a glance at a picture of the actual royal proclamation for the flag – which should be the basis/prototype for everything after that – (from the book I stand for Canada: the story of the Maple Leaf flag by Rick Archbold (ISBN 155199108X)) indicates a heraldic description of "Gules on a Canadian pale argent a maple leaf of the first" and depicts a slightly different shape still. The current SVG version was a collaborative attempt (based on all the info above) to rectify glaring errors in the other available versions of the flag (take a look at the history and discussion for the current image's PNG predecessor, still in widespread use), and there has been little debate about the quality or depiction on either file since their introduction. The current version is a 'first' among equals, so to speak. I know it isn't perfect, but nothing is. :) Thoughts? Thanks again for the input! E Pluribus Anthony 04:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Your welcome! I hope I didn't come across as being anal, but there are some things that just ... get me (images, I mean) ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 15:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

## Page name for temperature articles

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

## Talk:Monty Hall problem

You know, one of the things that depresses me most about Wikipedia is how likely one is to be caught by a surprise attack from behind. I guess all the time and effort I put into being patient and staying on the topic of the problem itself even as T. Z. K. resorted to tampering with my comments and accusing me of doing that myself was wasted, hunh? I guess the next time I'll just call him a stubborn dickhead, since no matter what I actually say, I'll be accused of ad hominem and have the patient explanations of the math I made complete with tables dismissed as "attack and counter-attack". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I deleted the evidence that you took the high ground. But honestly, does anyone really care besides you and this TZK person? That stuff belongs on user pages. Continue it there if you want. And at the end of the day, I'm just one person. If you think that discussion was serving the Wikipedia then please feel free to revert my edit, and I won't object. But if you had good arguments and tables, I think the 'pedia would be better served if you were to go ahead and work them into the article itself. --P3d0 02:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, I think I'll just watch instead of rv'ing your edit. ;-) hydnjo talk 03:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

## Standard gravity

I agree with your editorial comment at Specific impulse, that there are problems with standard gravity redirecting to acceleration due to gravity. I have commented on my concerns in that regard on Talk:Acceleration due to gravity. Gene Nygaard 20:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

## Even more monty Hall!

I hopefully have clarified your concern about what you call the "two players problem" in Monty Hall. If not, just let me know, maybe we can take it to talk. - Abscissa 17:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

## 2003UB313

Hi P3d0, just about UB313's volume: with a radius between 1150-1250 km it comes out to have a volume of 6.37-8.18×109 km³, that's why I think the second significant digit in the volume (~7×109 km³) is spurious (the uncertainty gets magnified because the radius gets cubed). Deuar 14:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good point. I just reverted my change. --P3d0 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

## Talk:Pluto's_natural_satellites#Seen_from_the_ecliptic?

Thanks for your note. Fully agree with you that calling someone impolite will be highly antagonistic, so as you might have noticed, I’ve steered away from such a statement as far as my limited English would allow me to do it. And I did not mean it, just overacted, sorry. Could you please comment on my barycenter remark? Is it now believed to be slightly under the surface or do I need a new calculator? Cheers. Eurocommuter 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

## Ahem

i as disscusing wikipedias problems, its people like you who take fascist control over the sites and delete things u dont like, r u trying to protect ur friends on wookiepedia. i was disscussing it on the talk page u had no right to get rid of it. you my dear sir, is an idiot facist. you should of just moved on, u didnt need to delete, how bout if i go around deleting ur comments, would u like that. actually thats a good idea, i might take myself up on thhat offer.

Did you read my edit summary? If you disagree, you're welcome to reinstate your comments. --P3d0 03:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

uh no, im not that mean

## Bangalore edit

I was trying to do two things at once and messed the edit up. I was trying to revert the article, but discovered after starting the process that there was still am "I AM GAY" stuck in the body text. Thanks for sorting it out. -- SGBailey 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

## Grouping refs

Your suggestion about how to implement <ref> tags in a block was interesting, and close to me "wish list" idea. Unfortunately, the naive form creates ugly vertical whitespace where the "hidden" div nonetheless occupies space. I played with some stuff, including creating tl:echo; and I think I have the bad aspects of the approach minimized (but not eliminated). Take a look back at my talk page. Or specifically, at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Hidden refs. I'm wondering if it would be worth trying out the approach on a real article (subject to the consensus/non-objection of editors on said article, of course). LotLE×talk 17:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

## Trivia section

The trivia section on that article violates NPOV because there were hundreds, if not thousands, of media outlets around the world that reported the existence of the Polar-grizzly hybrid and our decision to arbitrarily say some deserve mention in the article and others don't is pushing a POV. --MateoP 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I just don't care about this to argue any more. If you dislike the Colbert reference so vehemently, so be it. But the "we can't name them all so let's not name any" standpoint is not one I share (or else we'd never have List of solar system objects by radius for example). --P3d0 17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

## Personal Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. This is referring to the attackish comments you made on User:The Wookieepedian's talk page. Please try to stay civil. Thanks, Master of Puppets That's hot. 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think either you have misunderstood the comments I made, or I don't understand your complaint. We have a user being disruptive on Talk:Wookieepedia and I was just sharing what I thought was a very mild joke with User:The Wookieepedian regarding the matter. I don't know if you are aware, but my comment was in the context of my removal of personal attack against The Wookieepedian from Talk:Wookieepedia. --P3d0 16:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah. In this edit you pretty much told him he has no life, so I was concerned. Sorry about the warning if you weren't attacking him. Master of Puppets That's hot. 16:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh ok, I see the misunderstanding. I wasn't telling TW he had no life; I was referring to another user who (as part of recurring vandalism) made the statement "i have a life unlike the nerds hoo contribute to wookieepedia" (sic) and then proceeded to violate WP:3RR. To me that seemed ironic. --P3d0 16:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think its because I didn't know the context of the joke. I'll remove the warning if you want, and feel free to revert me on TW's page; sorry about the misunderstanding. Master of Puppets That's hot. 16:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
No sweat. I'm not too worried about it. I think it's clear we're all trying to do what's best for the 'pedia. Cheers. --P3d0 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• wow im cancelling my account because all the members here are gay

## 3 revert rule

u also broke the rule

• how come ur only getting on my case and not the 2 other guys, also i havent done it 3 times in one day either--Andy 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what edit history you're looking at, but the link I gave above shows you reverting it three times on May 24th. In fact, you reverted it four times between 17:46, May 24, 2006 and 17:29, May 25, 2006. Nobody else has reverted three times in 24 hours. --P3d0 12:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• in case u forgot to count its, 1,2,3,4 not 1,3,4, its alright tho not everyone on wikipedia is smart renough to count correctly

Here are your reverts from the period in question:

So, not only have you violated WP:NPA, but you are also incorrect. --P3d0 16:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• those times are wrong, check em

The times I quoted above are cut-and-pasted straight from the links I provided. If you need me to explain how to read a Wikipedia diff page, I can do that. --P3d0 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• u also have got to be the most stupid person on wiki, if i leave a message on talk wikipedia about how i feel about the "revert war" than that will end up being a revert war and so on, read the article u left me on my talk page, it is utterly retarted--Andy 03:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your recent additions were reverted because they violated Wikipedia policy. Discussing the revert war itself is perfectly fine, and if someone deleted such a discussion, I'd be the first to reinstate them. --P3d0 12:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• ya like i believe that, ud prob be the 1 to delete it--Andy 14:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC), also they are not cut and paste because the times atre off i checked them

Ok, let me explain how to read a Wikipedia diff page. Take 17:46, May 24, 2006 for example. On the left is the page before your change, and on the right is the page after your change. The timestamp for the left side is 23:05, May 23, 2006, which is the time that User:The Wookieepedian left the page like that. The timestamp on the right side is 17:46, May 24, 2006 which is when your edit occurred. If you check the timestamps I gave against the right-hand side of each linked diff, you'll find they all match. --P3d0 02:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• i no how to read it, the times are off

So then what is the time for this diff? --P3d0 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• --Andy 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)its still off

Ok. Can you tell me what you think the time is for this diff? --P3d0 11:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

21:46

Ah, I see. It's probably because we're in different time zones. I'm in EDT in Canada. --P3d0 19:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• the minutes are off, along with the hours--Andy 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have that one link listed as 17:46, so the minutes are right on that one. If the others are indeed different, perhaps there is a bug in Mediawiki that we should report. What are the times you see for the other three links? --P3d0 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• the other ones are wrong tho, i think thAt one is wrong to

I said 17:46, and you said 21:46, so the minutes agree on that one. If you tell me what you see for the others, maybe we can put together a bug report for Mediawiki. --P3d0 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• 17 and 21 are 4 hours apart, wat part of Canada do u live in, im in the central time zone, and 4 away on either side is no longer on this continent--Andy 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then you must have your Wikipedia time zone set to UTC. If you choose "my preferences" at the top of the screen, then pick the Date and Time tab, you can press the "Fill in from browser" button and have it set your time zone properly. --P3d0 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• is urs cuz on the edit page it says utc for urs and mine for the time

Well, if it says UTC, then that means it's showing you the times in UTC. For me, it's showing them in EDT. UTC is 4 hours later than EDT, which is why it seems to be 5pm for me, and 9pm for you. --P3d0 20:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

## MH problem

Hey P3d0, good to meet you. Re MH - Never argue with someone who knows he's right.. Also, it's amazing to me that several posters now have chosen this article for their WP debut. Maybe Special:Random is tossing this article more often than chance would suggest.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

## Bulbasaur

Just a heads up — not saying you are doing it directly, but the bulbasaur FAC is going to stir up two hornet nests, both of which are going to intermingle and leave a 200+ KB debate and at least one user leaving the encyclopedia. I'm staying clear :) — Deckiller 16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you help in copy-editing Adi Shankara. I've nominated it for FAC here. I'd appreciate it if you could help. --BabubTalk 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

## Design by Contract

Sorry, I did not intend to be rude but you are right that my comment appeared as such. Please accept my apologies. Fuchsias 18:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

## Toronto Rock page

Thanks for replacing the links on the Toronto Rock page. Just so you know, AWB is not broken, it was me who removed the duplicate links. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 20:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. I've never used AWB. I just assumed it does things like that by accident. Sorry about that. --P3d0 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem - AWB does some stuff automatically, but it doesn't remove duplicate links. It does list duplicate links though, and it doesn't check to see if any of them are image captions or in infoboxes or anything like that, so I just went through and removed the duplicates until the list was empty. I'll pay closer attention to where the links are next time. MrBoo (talk, contribs) 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

## Ernest William Brown

I take the point that my original draft saying 'it was time that was slowing down', was not technically correct. However, I think that the sentence reads better if we express it as a contrast. I have therefore reworded it again to reflect this. --Portnadler 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

## WikiProject Lacrosse

I have created a proposal for a new WikiProject about lacrosse, and I thought you might be interested in joining. Please check out the temporary project page at User:MrBoo/WikiProject Lacrosse and sign your name if you are interested.

Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created the real project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Lacrosse and I've added you as a member. Thanks for your interest! --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

## Copyedit

Hi. The article on HIV is currently on FAC review. One of the issues that has arisen is the need for a copyedit. User:Tony1 suggested that you might be willing to have look over it as it does need a pair of fresh eyes. It's a really important article that we want to ride on WP's reach into the developed and developing worlds, and a linguistic edit is required, so don't be put off by the medical content. Your fresh eyes would be of great value at this mature stage of the FAC process. Thanks. --Bob 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

## P/E ratio

You recently stated that you did not agree with the POV of that page. Can you please say which points you disagree with and your arguments?24.82.95.165 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

## Endianness and Gulliver's Travels

Hi,

thanks for your corrections to the endianness article. At this point I wonder whether it would be better to report the reference to the book without mentioning the term "endianness" (only "Big-Endian") and move it later in the article. What do you think? (The article is in desperate need for overall copyediting, so probably this isn't high in the priority list; but while we are at it…) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone has done it already. --P3d0 18:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I did it :-) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

## Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lou.Ferrigno.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lou.Ferrigno.JPG. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GeeJo (t)(c) • 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

## Planetary Symbols on Solar System article

Hi. I understand your reasoning in removing the planetary symbols from the intro as they may well be very distracting. But I do think that they belong in the article, if not in the intro, at least when each planet is listed. After all, the article did reach featured status with the symbols in place, didn't it? What do you think? Cheers. --EarthPerson 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I could see including them somewhere in a table further down in the article perhaps. But just because they were there before, even when the article reached Featured status, doesn't necessarily mean they ought to be "grandfathered in". In my own humble opinion, the individual planet articles already have the astronomical symbols listed, and I don't see them being important or interesting enough to put elsewhere. --P3d0 22:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

## Orphaned fair use image (Image:Edmonton rush logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edmonton rush logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

## Orphaned fair use image (Image:Colorado mammoth logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Colorado mammoth logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

## Orphaned fair use image (Image:Calgary roughnecks logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Calgary roughnecks logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

## Orphaned fair use image (Image:Buffalo bandits logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Buffalo bandits logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image (Image:Arizona sting logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arizona sting logo.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

## Colors of the Irish flag

I see you posted regarding the colors of the Irish flag here. There is a discussion about the precise colours of the flag here if you are interested--Trounce 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

## Please allow me to be stupid in private

You reverted my edit on the talk page on Sorting algorithms saying: "We don't delete other people's comments just because they are nonsensical".

I agree with you in general. I only delete other people's comments when they are also outdated and irrelevant.

However, I would like to be allowed to delete my own brain farts. Grotendeels Onschadelijk 04:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just deleted it again (including your retort). Please leave it that way? Grotendeels Onschadelijk 04:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Didn't notice it was your own comment. Sorry. --P3d0 04:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
We live and learn. I will probably use something like "retract" instead of "delete" next time. Feel free to delete this discussion. Grotendeels Onschadelijk 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an open mind!  :) If you'd like to read more of the discussions, check the talk pages at Depictions of Muhammad and Black Stone. --Elonka 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

## Split indicative

Whoops, indeed, it's a "split indicative" not a "split infinitive." I don't think its necessarily correct to say "by far" modifies "dominant" and not "has." The idiom "has by far remained" is technically modifying "has remained," and that's fine English, if a bit idiomatic. All the best. jhawkinson 16:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hope you'll excuse me as someone just overhearing, but "has by far remained" seems to me to indicate that it has remained, much more than it has done anything else. Again, excuse me, I have no idea how I even got here. Grotendeels Onschadelijk 04:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I called it a "misplaced modifier". --P3d0 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is exactly that policy which prohibits the interweaving of comments in all but the rarest of cases. You may not think that you changed the meaning but you have changed how other people will read the thread. When you mix your comments into the middle of the signed comments of others, you are breaking the natural attribution of the comment and disrupting the first author's intended flow of comments and logic. When you interject your comment, it makes the first part of the other person's comment look like it was left by an anon - and often by an anon who can't complete a thought. The second half of the comment is still signed but the other person still looks stupid to the subsequent readers who don't see how the thoughts logically build on each other. The conclusion appears to come from nowhere.

That policy does have a bullet on Interruptions but includes the qualifiers "exercise caution", "In some cases", "long contribution" and "if the contribution introduces a new topic" and requires that you fix the attribution when you do so. (Frankly, even if you had fixed the attribution, I would have objected because it was an integrated topic and not a particularly long comment. The interruption was not justified.)

Some users don't care, others tolerate it as mildly incivil and some (including me) react strongly. You do not have permission to modify my comment and that includes interjecting your own thoughts into the middle of it.

I'll concede that you forced me into the uncomfortable position where the only way I could restore the integrity of my comment was to move yours (which, as you said, changes the context). I did my best to repair that by explicitly commenting on the move. If I repaired it badly, you always had the option to correct or clarify your own comment to reestablish the context as long as you don't again change my comment. Please don't interweave within my comments again. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

## Apotheosis of David Livingstone

I've changed apotheosis from recognition to 'glorification' if that's okay with you; I think in the context the contributor meant to stress the 'deification' aspect of the word. Regards, Rexparry sydney 01:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that suits me. I tossed the two words around in my head for a while and decided that deification was a bit strong, but if you think it's more appropriate, that's fine with me. --P3d0 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

## Roche limit FAR

Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

## Éolienne Bollée

Explanation on talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

## Comb sort

I'm interested in the optimal shrink ratio that guarantees O(n log n) worst case time. You added the expession ${\displaystyle 1/(1-{\frac {1}{e^{\frac {{\sqrt {5}}+1}{2}}}})}$. Where did it come from? The disappeared web http://world.std.com/~jdveale/combsort.htm linked in the talk page? Was there any proof for that shrink factor? Thanks in advance! --Como (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's where I got it. I don't really remember. Sorry! --P3d0 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. I'll go on searching. --Como (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

## New Delhi

There is already a map of new delhi in the infobox. Another one is not needed in the geography section. Nikkul (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

## DAK trigger

Please see the discussion here before you add the erroneous info you added about the DAK trigger. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

## Animated maps

Generally, the animated maps I've made are based on individual frames available on the Territorial Evolution articles (like of Canada, of Mexico, etc.) The only one that isn't is the CSA one, and I can upload individual frames of that if you'd like. So, if it's the animated maps of Canada or Mexico you're interested in pulling frames from, check out Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of Mexico. However, I'm also sure there must be some free programs available to extract individual frames from an animated GIF, I just don't know them; you may want to ask around on the village pump for that one. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

## lol

I just hope I'm right! Serendipodous 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

## Solar System

I noticed your edit, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

## Universal Time

FYI, I have replied to a question you posted last year at Talk:Universal Time#Let's walk through the steps. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

## Harold Shipman - UK spelling

Hi, your edits on this article were useful, but I think you should bare in mind UK spelling when editing UK articles:) Jewellery has two 'l's over here:) Only a small point, keep up the good work. Malick78 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The article had a link like [[jewelery|jewellery]] and I often edit articles to "simplify links", often by getting rid of unnecessary alternate text as in here and there. I guess I was on autopilot. --P3d0 (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free media (Image:Toronto rock logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Toronto rock logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

## Fair use rationale for Image:Kung_Fu_Fighting.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kung_Fu_Fighting.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. 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 Wikipedia: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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

## Talk: Sorting algorithm

I have added a reply to something you said on Talk: Sorting algorithm. H-J (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC). Updated H-J (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your opinion regarding the spoiler in the lead. Please post your opinion in the "Request for Comment" section on here: Talk:Watchmen#RfC:_Appropriateness_of_Spoiler_in_Lead. Some guy (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I am driven to the point of rage by Wesley Dodds and his unflagging idiocy - he is absolutely ignoring everything I say, covering his hands with his ears and yelling that spoilers must be kept because they are spoilers. Are you familiar enough with Wikipedia's obtuse beauracracy to bring in an administrator or third party to address this issue? I have not seen anyone give the most miniscule amount of reasoning on how the spoilers serve an encyclopedic purpose or why they are important to the article. He is abusing Wikipedia:Spoiler to the full extent, absolutely refusing to allow any changes without any actual reason. I am reluctant to get involved in an all-out editing war but he is abusing the system to keep the article in its current state without regard to quality for as long as possible. Some guy (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

## trails

Trail blazing Here. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

## Markham Gang

You asked a question on the Markham Gang talk page. I tried to answer it, can you see if I succeeded? BTW, you'll probably be interested in Late Heavy Bombardment. Just a guess. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --P3d0 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

## Hisense Grammar Edits

Thank you for editing and not to disparage but you do know that "... is comprised of..." is a legitimate use of the word "comprise", right? Maybe it's just an Americanism, but it's widely used here... in fact it was only recently that I began to come across that word used in the manner that your edits have. But I won't change your edits!

Ok, fair enough. Reading around, it seems the new usage (synonymous with "composed") is growing more common. --P3d0 (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It's widely used, but most authorities on either side of the Atlantic still consider it incorrect. —SlamDiego←T 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

## HST

Hey,

From reading your source, it appears that houses below 400,000 are taxed 2% which is what they are taxed currently. Let me know what you think. --Pdelongchamp (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 2% tax represents a 75% rebate from the full 8% tax. --P3d0 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I just understood your point. The difference is not in houses below $400k, but in houses above$400k. The original proposal was to claw-back the 75% rebate. That has changed: the rebate will no longer be clawed back. In the words of the paper I cited: "The effect of the enhanced rebate would be to apply the provincial portion of the single sales tax at a rate of two per cent on the first $400,000 of the purchase price of a new home and at a rate of eight per cent on the portion above$400,000." --P3d0 (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! and for the dollar sign fix. At work I have to use American english. Now it messes me up no matter who I'm writing for. --Pdelongchamp (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)