User talk:Zundark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• archive 2001-2003
• archive 2004

Hi, I'm just wondering why you edited my C++ version of the "Hello World" program. Your version was in itself partially correct. Erehtsti 11:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My version was entirely correct. Your version was wrong, because the return type of main() is required to be int (see section 3.6.1 of the C++ standard). --Zundark 12:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for source, I stand corrected. Well, you learn something new everyday Erehtsti 20:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Enough

Fair enough with the definition/proof thing - i was bored and needed to edit something slightly more intelligent than my usual football and boxing stuff (having said which - what i put down wasn't nonsensical, it been out of context). But just a question (not trying to be bolshy or sarcastic), but what articles can be written about mathematics?

A.K.A.47 14:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean what articles still need to be written? We seem to have articles on most of the basic things now, but there's a list of articles that are still needed at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/mathematics. --Zundark 15:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sovetunion_small.png

[edit] Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Dear Zundark, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryce Harrington

Hi -- Since you've ben working on the Inkscape article, I thought you might be interested to know that the Bryce Harrington article is currently being voted on for deletion. --Bcrowell 16:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 13:47 (UTC)

[edit] Bitstream Vera

You said that you had a picture of Bitstream Vera but could not upload it: presumably this is now not the case? Also do you know where I can find a non-compressed version of this font? This machine does not understand .gz files and whilst I can install new fonts they don't like me installing applications willy-nilly :-( --Phil | Talk July 6, 2005 17:28 (UTC)

I uploaded that image a long time ago: Image:BitstreamVera.png. Someone had uploaded a different image over the top of it, but I've reverted it now. I assume you can cope with zip files (Windows XP handles them natively): http://www.zundark.btinternet.co.uk/Vera.zip (if you really need uncompressed, let me know). --Zundark 6 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color

Can I get you to come to this page? — Xiong熊talk* 23:36, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

[edit] Field

About your edit to Field (mathematics): "not a field, but a Field (But I'm not very happy about this "Field" thing - there must be a better term.)"

Care to explain? In this case it should be "Field" in every instance of the term in the article, no? (That would be horrible.) Or are "Field" and "field" different entities? Maths books I've checked use "field". Mathematical terms, BTW, are precisely defined so this "there must be a better term" thing seems strange. But as I'm not a mathematician, I'm willing to learn. RodC 15:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Field" and "field" are different things. The surreal numbers don't form a field, because there are "too many of them" (that is, they form a proper class, not a set). So the article defines "Field" to mean something that is like a field, except that the underlying class is a proper class rather than a set. (This definition is on the line above the one you edited, but I assume you must have missed it.) This is, in my opinion, horrible terminology, because it's a very obscure term (I've never seen it before) that is almost identical to the very well known term "field" and yet has a slightly different meaning. That is why I say there must be a better term. (If there really is no better term, then perhaps the article should avoid using any term for this concept at all, since "Field" is just confusing.) The surreal numbers and the nimbers are the only Fields in the article, so it's certainly not the case that "field" should be capitalized everywhere. --Zundark 16:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I had missed that line indeed (I've edited it now for conspicuousness and clarity). I agree with your unhappiness about the term: a sentence starting "Fields are..." becomes unacceptably ambiguous. But if they really are "some times called" that way, the original editor should have some reference to back it. In any case I'd support the removal of this term if there is no better one. RodC 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

In regard of your edit [1], please have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages):

• Unlike a regular article page, don't wikilink any other words in the line, unless they may be essential to help the reader determine where they might find the information. For example:
  • "Dark Star", a song by the Grateful Dead
  • not: "Dark Star", a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead

Markus Schmaus 22:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

That edit was made way back in October 2003, when Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) didn't exist and Wikipedia:Manual of Style said nothing about disambiguation pages. The style I used was normal practice at the time. I usually try to adhere to current guidelines rather than future ones, partly because guidelines from different future times contradict one another, and also because my precognitive abilities aren't very good. --Zundark, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Image

Hey there. An image you uploaded (a while ago), Image:Wales flag large.png, will be deleted since it is redundant to Image:Flag of Wales.svg, a standard-named SVG version of the image, apparently from the exact same source where yours came from. Have a good day! – TTD Bark! 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in Tetum

• Help building a Wikipedia in Tetum, the national language of East Timor. Give your contribution to the improvement of its test page -- Regards, 195.23.53.121 11:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Manuel de Sousa

[edit] Please check your WP:NA listing.

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not remove it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update.
3. Check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki-wiki day! BD2412 T 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject C++

The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! --Deryck C. 15:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re City Slicker

And you might try learning to tell the time- I wasn't reverting you. See here. Please try and be civil when using edit summaries in future. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you intended to do, what you actually did was to revert my restoration of the correct spelling. You seem to be saying that I should have assumed that you don't know how to revert without the risk of doing this sort of thing, or that you do know how but couldn't be bothered. Well, to tell the truth I guessed that this was the case, but I preferred to write an edit summary based on what you actually did, rather than my guess of what you intended to do. Maybe I could have come up with an edit summary better than "revert - try looking in a dictionary", but since you had just called me a vandal (albeit unintentionally) I wasn't really in the mood to do so. In future, please be more careful about what you are reverting. --Zundark 19:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Both edits were made at (almost) exactly the same time, but there was no direct edit conflict. If you look at the page history, you will see that both edits have the same time stamp. I WAS reverting vandalism, to a previous, non-vandalised version. No-one is at fault here- except you, for writing a deliberately rude edit summary- and for not engaging your brain enough to realise that one would be a bit of an idiot to interpret a simple and isolated spelling mistake as vandalism. If by the above you are suggesting that you failed to assume good faith, then I agree 100%. Badgerpatrol 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there was no edit conflict shows that you edited the page after I had already saved it (so you were, in fact, reverting me). If you had refreshed your view of the page history before clicking the "Save page" button you would have seen this. I always do this in order to be sure of what I'm reverting, but apparently you don't. This carelessness of yours is obviously my fault, as no one is at fault except me. --Zundark 14:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The two edits were made within seconds of one another. The timestamps are identical. It was a good faith edit- do you consider minor spelling mistakes to be vandalism? I don't, and in my experience, neither does anyone else here. Had you thought about it for a second, I am quite certain you would have understood the situation more clearly. Given the fact that both edits were made at (almost) identical times, and that both were reverting (or attempting to revert) obvious vandalism, you might have considered for a moment before adding a careless and unnecessarily rude edit summary. (Although is incivility ever necessary on wikipedia? Perhaps you think it is. I don't). Assume good faith. I have nothing more to add on this tedious subject. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The two edits were made within a minute of one another - I have never suggested otherwise. And my previous comment should have made it clear that I consider your edit careless, rather than lacking in good faith. And, yes, this is certainly a tedious subject, but it was you who decided to start a discussion on it. And incivility isn't necessary on Wikipedia, but you nonetheless resorted to it at the start of this discussion because you were annoyed at my edit summary, so perhaps you can understand why I resorted to it when I was annoyed at your careless reversion. And in future I think I'll leave vandalism for other people to revert. --Zundark 16:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topological spaces

See Talk:Topological_space#Number_of_topologies

See reply there. --Zundark 16:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I386

Hi, I rollbacked an old rollback you did on I386 (the redirecting page). Please justify why i386 would concern more 80386 than IA-32 if you disagree.--Chealer 05:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

See the articles themselves (Intel 80386 and IA-32) for justification. By the way, your redirect doesn't work. --Zundark 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw them and think they justify the opposite. Thanks, didn't notice IA32 has moved, that's fixed now.--Chealer 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Well, even though you're not interested in adminship, thanks for the work that you do here, and have done for so long! BD2412 T 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Amazons.png listed for deletion

[edit] Re: ISO Code Montenegro

Hey - I take your point absolutely about checking the ISO website regarding the codes for Montenegro. That is the central core of Wiki - check and clarify sources, after all. However, just to allow you into the context of my understanding, I have great faith in User:Nightstallion and his notes section, which has included a "watch" for the new ISO codes for both Serbia, and Montengro. The moment I saw his information had changed, which I quote below, I took this to be the current situation, as he is an editor of fine repute.

New ISO 3166-1 codes to be

issued for Montenegro (ME and MNE)

and Serbia (RS and SRB) (→ replace

 Montenegro and  Serbia with ISO

code templates).

Of course, this may not itself be true, but I wanted to show that I was taking what i thought to be correct from a source I trust onto the article.

doktorb _words^deeds 15:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion may well be right about the codes, but note that he says "to be issued". We shouldn't include them in the list until they are issued, and this is no doubt why Nightstallion hasn't added them to the list himself. (Also, when these codes are issued, the numeric codes will be issued too, and the codes for the union of Serbia and Montenegro will be withdrawn.) --Zundark 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully accept your point. I will await the ISO announcement :) doktorb _words^deeds 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved problems

Thanks for adding the group theory problem to Unsolved problems in mathematics. We need more fields to be represented! CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Czechoslovakia

Is pushing a particular point of view more important than the encyclopedia ? By turning Czechoslovakia into a disambiguation page, several thousand Wikilinks no longer work. This is disruptive. Please do not change the page from a redirect until you have fixed the links. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't worked out what point of view you are trying to push, but the answer to your question is "No" in any case. By redirecting Czechoslovakia to Republic of Czechoslovakia, as you have done twice now, you cause a huge number of links to end up on the wrong page. Please do not redirect it again until you have at least gone through all the links to Czechoslovakia and changed those that would be broken by such a redirect (by which time you should have realised why the whole concept of redirecting Czechoslovakia to another article is fundamentally flawed). Juro's disambiguation page is a first step towards fixing the mess that Domino theory has created. It is by no means ideal, but it's a start. I do not expect to do much work on Czechoslovakia articles myself, but if I see you disrupting other people's work again, I am liable to revert you again. --Zundark 18:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)