User talk:ExNihilo

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) --Actown ^e 22:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

to break the three revert rule an editor must make four edits which are the same within a 24 hour period - I suggust you read WP:3RR before making false accusation again!--Vintagekits 17:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combined List[edit]

While I don't agree with the "Combined 9/11 'perpetrators' and 'victims' death lists", it'll work since your edit makes it clearer that the perpetrators are not grouped under the victims tag as well. Thanks for the correction. Take Care and Happy 4th (for the next 16mins)...NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice[edit]

I saw your comment on Empire: Total War. I thought it was rather amusing, so I reported the user, they are now indefinitely blocked. Granted they were spamming before that on an IP - but this _might_ slow them down. Just for your record. If they vandalize (in this case, spam) after a "final" warning is left on their talk page, you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've never had to try and get someone blocked before and didn't have time to figure out the process when I made the edit. - ExNihilo (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mIRC[edit]

You reverted some clarification I added to the mIRC article without clearly reviewing the info. The reference already in the article explains why other client authors must guess and the link you gave http://www.mirc.co.uk/help/color.txt also shows where the guessing must happen. The mIRC color article even has a specific section saying "Note that if you want to give color to NUMBERS this syntax could mess up if used improperly :-)" and never goes on to say what mIRC itself will do if the users do use it improperly.

In addition the current comment is completely wrong as is because Onno Tijdgat is clearly more concerned that the mIRC method is flawed than he is about it being "non standard".

Whether the criticism is valid enough to even be left in the article is another discussion but as is it MUST be changed.65.27.0.10 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's absolutely no guessing involved. It's quite clear what happens if numbers follow colour codes. Whether the behaviour and the format is a good idea is another matter, but it's already acknowledged in the article that the format is flawed. As far as the 'no common standard' line goes, that's undoubtedly part of Onno's argument. Later in the page he goes on about the flaws but that doesn't mean the other counterpoint isn't relevant. As far as the flaws go there's not really much of a response to have is there? The format is flawed, but it's been implemented in dozens of clients and even a few IRC daemons so changing it now is unlikely to meet with success. I suppose that could be put in the article, but for now at least it's better to have an incomplete summary of the criticism and the points surrounding it then to have a false statement (that there's guessing involved). ExNihilo (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mIRC HTML parsing[edit]

Hello. You've reverted my edit on mIRC claiming that mIRC is an HTML praser. Did you even try to prase a websites' HTML output with mIRC? try the article itself. It's impossible. The only thing you can do is save the content to a file (if you use binary variables), But not scan it, since lines above 1024 characters cannot be read. And there are almost always lines like that. There is no practicle way to prase HTML via mIRC. I'm removing that false claim from the article. You're welcome to put it back if you have a link to a script that is capable of doing so. --Nezek (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're basing the assertion that its impossible on a flawed approach to the problem. There's no need to parse HTML as a single step or line-by-line. HTML can be processed using stateful parsing whereby the data is parsed using multiple steps. Direct file/binvar operations/identifiers can be used for several states (ie. parsing through plaintext, CDATA, comments), and for the steps that require the complexity of mIRC's regular identifiers the data can be broken down into 4000 byte chunks in text variables and parsed accordingly.

Aside from that though, HTML parsing needn't mean parsing an entire HTML document. In practice I often see HTML parsing being used for data scraping as a second stage after a simple string search is used to find the location of data to be taken. Usually it's just a small string which can then be parsed directly in text variables.

-- ExNihilo (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]