This user is a WikiWitch

User talk:Sue Rangell

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


Active peer reviewers[edit]

The project Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Peer review really needs active peer reviewers, so if you could click on that article and add your username under the Active Peer reviewers section that would be great. Please reply on my talk page and let me know. Thanks! Maranjosie (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Sue Rangell. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Favor?[edit]

Hello there! I've a favor to ask. I just noticed that the Sophie Hunter page has an external image which is outdated. The photo from IMDB was from 2011 but there's a newly uploaded photo that is more suitable, taken just this month. This one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1259206656/tt2084970 or this one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1275983872/tt2084970. I hope you can help in changing it (or removing it altogether as I don't think it's necessary to the page at all). Thank you very much!197.155.199.110 (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell.--v/r - TP 20:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to out you[edit]

[[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have no comments on the merits of the allegations of sockpuppetry and doxxing, but it appears that you may not have been given proper notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC United States same-sex marriage map[edit]

I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas: RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Chile world same-sex marriage map[edit]

Please join discussion for how Chile should be colored. Prcc27 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Civil POV essay[edit]

I found your essay interesting. To bad you didn't catch the metacompiler spat. I responded to an anonymous response to a previous question. It had to do with the core of the definition. That a metacompiler compiles itself. And compiling itself is mind boggling. Having actually worked with metacompilers and in compiler development I disagreed with the article defination. The whole thing got out of hand. I was called names and threatened to be reported for vandalism if I changed anything. I responded a bit harshly. I am sorry for that.

There is a lot of confusion. We have compiler compiler and metacompiler. Originally we called every compiler that used any abstract method of describing the process a compiler compiler. If that process used some method of turning a description of the language into a compiler it was a compiler compiler. Then yacc came along. "yacc" is a parser generater. It really wasn't a compiler compiler. But yacc is an acronym for yet another compiler compiler. And every sense the term compiler compiler includes anything that recognized language.

Val Shorre wrote META II in 1963 - 64 and was published in the ACM SigPlan notices. It is the first compiler compiler documented as being a metacompiler. That is it was called a metacompiler in it own documents and others. There are at least 5 compilers documented that are based on Schorre's work. The same language specification language used in all of them with a few additions. That is they only added to the origional or changed how code is produced. The language recognize part remained consistent. Any way you can look at the talk:metacompiler page for how that went down.

The thing I came for was the POV policy. I think for technical article personal experience should be ussable. At least in producing origional examples. Of course referances should backup personal knowledge.

There are issues were subjects are used in more then one field. Formal Grammar is a term used in more then one field. It is an example of a conflict. Not really a POV conflict as the different views are valid. I can not get that point across though.

The Schorre metacompilers use a reductive grammar language. It is definitely reductive or as most say analytical grammar. The 2006 McGraw-Hill technical term dictionary has "reduction grammar" defined. But no entry for analytical grammar. So I assume reduction is the more proper term.

We are talking grammar rules. The linguist POV is productive grammars rules that describe how to form words and sentences from a languages character set. A reductive grammar is a set of rules that can determine if a sequence is a valid in a language. Production grammar being a bottom up construction of words and sentences. Reductive is a top down reductive breaking apart of a existing string sequence of characters. Trying to recognize the parts making up the largest language construct. Breaking it into smaller and smaller parts down to its characters.

The problem comes into play when one view dominates the lead of an artical. In a computer science we have a formal language being described by a formal grammar. And a formal grammar being up front defined as a set of production rules. And we have the metacompiler's language defined in its own language. A reductive grammar language.

The actual rules may appear to be the same for context free grammars. The BNF rule:

<x> ::= <y>

calls x and y class names. But as a general production rule <x> is a pattern and <y> is a string. <x> can be a complex pattern made up of terminals and non-terminals. In a production grammar a non-terminal is a symbol or character of the language. <y> replaces the sequence matched by <x>. Production rules are simply a loop that tests the pattern <x> against the string under construction and if the pattern matches some part, it is replaced by the <y> string. And the process is repeated. A CFG Context Free Grammar only has single non-terminal <x> patterns on the left. There is a start symbol. It can viewed as the initial string state or as just copying some start ruled <y> string to the construction string.


A reduction grammar has a unique rule name <x> on the left. and a pattern on the right. The pattern is made up of operators, constants and named rule referances. A rule tests the input string against the pattern calling other rules as required by the pattern. Eventually a rule defines a word made of characters that is a token. The matched tokens and connecting constructs are separated out until it matches the language construct or fails.

Generally reductive grammars have only been designed to recognize context free grammars. But CWIC and later metacompiler can recognize context free grammars.

My personal knowledge of the early Schorre metacompilers is recent. I first learned CWIC that was the last publicly documented Schorre metacompiler. I have spent quite a bit of time researching other metacompiler. Many of which are not written in their own language and do not compile their selves. Two (book1 and book2) were said to be written in lisp. Others in assembly. That does not preclude them from being able to define them selves as stated in the the META II and TREE-META documents. The early metacompilers only calmed to be able to define their self in their own metalanguage.

If you look at the talk:metacompiler debate. I never explained my origional understanding of the term. Back then Val Schorre and Erwin Book both talked about metalanguage programs compiled by CWIC. So I always thought of a metacompiler as a compiler for a program written in a metalanguage. Same as a COBOL program is compiled by a COBOL compiler. A program written in the x langusge is compiled by an x compiler. A program written in FORTRAN is compiled using a FORTRAN ompiler. In researching I found three origional documents or papers on matacompers. Two of which said there were defined in their own metalanguage. All three explained they take as input a program written in a metalanguage. Those are META II, TREE-META, and CWIC. I had the CWIC documentation that did have it itself documented in its own language. It is the one that did not make the clme but actually supplied its source code in the documentation. I think they all do.


SDC made CWIC proprietary around 1070. SLIC was never publicly documented. There is an ACM SigPLAN paper on CWIC with examples and data flow diagrams. Actually quite a bit of information.

Anyway it seamed, sense reading about you here, maybe I should explain my part in the metacompiler cluge. That being my first time editing a topic. Up until that time I had been on talk pages. But because I had first hand knowledge of the subjects I put my information in the talk pages. Corrected and added explanation comments to examples ment to help the understanding of what was already there.

Maybe you can help. From 1969 - 1973 I implemented SLIC a more advanced metacompiler extending CWIC's code generation abilities. I had some input on exactly how CWIC worked from Erwin Book. SLIC was later used to write a COBOL compiler. A secretary learned SLIC and used for analyzing documents. Two other programmers used SLIC. One used it to implement a TI990 cross assembler. The other wrote most of the COBOL compiler. I did a small part of the COBOL. The COBOL compiler was written in a around a three or four month time period.

That is not the reason I am posting here. I won't a better understanding of what an essay can be used for. Can it be used to explain a specific topic and linked to from talk pages. You do not appear biased to either side of the formal grammar defination. In my personal space I have tried to explain how the Schorre line of metacompilers work. The more advanced CWIC metacompiler anyway. Hopefully so it can be understood by someone interested but lacking the technical background. It is a vary specialized technical subject. But if explained right can be understude by a lay person. If a secretary can learn to actually program simple text recognition in SLIC it should be able to be explained to most editors here. Afterall the mark language has to be understood. And it is not all that easy to find here. I have to resort to copy and pasting many things I won't to use. We should be able to search markup language constructs. Without my background I couldn't do a lot of the tables, links etc. But that's another topic. Something that would very useful in edit mode is a markup search feature.

The link to my personal space on Schorre matalanguages

If you are not interested or not have time no problem just delete this.

Steamerandy (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Steamerandy, Sue Rangell has not been active on the site since August of 2014 and I'm not sure if she checks her Talk page. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements[edit]

Because of the unusual number of potential participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather case, the committee has made special arrangements to enable i-banned editors to post and respond evidence about each other. These are as follows:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for the purpose of participating on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)