User talk:Shreevatsa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would like to keep discussions unfragmented.

Conventions:

  • If I post on your talk page, please post your replies there.
  • I will reply here to comments made here, unless you request me to reply somewhere else.
  • I will also post a brief note on your talk page when I reply, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise (as below).
  • If I post on your talk page, I will have the page on my watchlist, so you do not have to notify me of replies posted there.
  • If you write a reply to me here, I may move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
  • Please remember to sign all your comments.
  • To leave me a new message that does not fit any of the already present discussions, click here. Make sure you give a subject.

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 00:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. I believe I noticed your edit to constrained writing ([1]), and contacted you because you did not have a talk page, indicating you were a new user. Thus the welcome.
If I noticed the lack of edit summary I did not comment on it assuming you where fairly new to Wikipedia (at least as a signed on user) and that you may pick it up very quickly. The message I may have eventually used may be found at Template:Editsummarynew.
It sounds like you found it already, but you can find information about edit summaries at Wikipedia:Edit summary.
If you have any more questions or concerns again feel free to contact me. Hyacinth 20:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage does not exist, so...

Hi Shreevatsa, I've noticed that you currently don't have a userpage. This makes your name appear as a redlink when signing talk pages, or when seen in Special:Recentchanges or the edit history of a page. One simple solution, if you don't want to create a userpage, is to edit your userpage and insert the following:

#REDIRECT [[User talk:Shreevatsa]]

This will make your userpage a redirect to your talk page. If you ever want to create a user page, follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/s/h/r/User%7EShreevatsa_6099.html

Thanks, Alphax τεχ 06:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not correct other user's comments

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yarnalgo (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about that. Even without reading the guidelines page, it was somewhat clear to me that editing others' comments on talk pages was awkward, but I thought that as the question was about English, it would be better to subject the other user to mild aggravation than to teach the person wrong English. I notice that you've also done the same :) --Shreevatsa 16:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homœopathy article

I do appreciate your (small) contributions at homeopathy. As I'm making a new outline on homeopathy you might better do this here as the old page will be replaced soon and your corrections could be lost. --Homy 01:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This was my comment, sorry if it did not 'belong' here. However I was trying to encourage you. Since you DID correct this comment, now it do belong here and I placed it back. Please continue your good work. High regards --Homy 11:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my past comments. You have the right to delete messages from others (it is polite to answer first). See Help:Talk page So feel free to delete whatever I wrote and you don't have to reply in my case. --Homy 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm sorry I didn't reply for so long. IIRC, it was only a minor change (a spelling typo, I think) that I made when I happened to encounter the page; I'm not otherwise greatly interested in actively editing that article. So I didn't bother to reply, but I realise now that it was impolite. Anyway, I'm curious about the process you are using: is it accepted practice on Wikipedia to edit an article at some location other than the page itself? Shouldn't there be a notice on the page if that is so? I find it odd. Anyway, sorry to have kept you waiting for a reply. Shreevatsa

[edit] Longest common subsequence

Dear Shreevatsa, could you please give a reference to the dynamic programming algorithm that you mentioned. Talk:List_of_NP-complete_problems#Longest_common_subsequence --GrGr 07:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindu mathematicians

Shakuntala Devi is a mathematician. She is also a Hindu. Therefore she is a Hindu mathematician. - User:Bakasuprman

Most people would categorize someone who can do the equation 7,686,369,774,870 x 2,465,099,745,779 in her head in under 30 seconds correctly a mathematicianBakaman%% 00:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoever these "most people" are, they are wrong, and there is no reason for Wikipedia to perpetuate this misconception. Calling someone whose sole claim to fame is an ability to multiply numbers or extract 23rd roots a mathematician is akin to calling someone who is good at reciting the alphabet a linguist. FWIW, I know plenty of (good) mathematicians who would probably have as much difficulty multiplying two three-digit numbers as anyone else would. Look at the mental calculator page, it says "many are also experienced mathematicians, linguists, writers, and so on", implying (implicitly) that not all of them are mathematicians. Shakuntala Devi is no more a mathematician than a pocket calculator is. You might also want to look at the list to see that most of them are not categorised as mathematicians, except those (Riemann, Gauss, Euler, Ramanujan etc.) who really are mathematicians.
I won't edit that page till we reach a consensus, in accordance with the 3RR, but I hope we reach one soon. Regards, --Shreevatsa 06:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I had other matters, so you can go ahead and take out the category if you so choose, but if you have the interest, I think the page really needs to be wikified. Thanks.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of accented words in English language

Hi, what did you mean by "every word is a reference :P"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I meant that it was not necessary, or possible, to provide references that the words on the page were indeed accented words. You might object to the page as not being encyclopedic material, or as WP:OR (not really), but it doesn't make sense to claim that the page has unverified material. One can see for oneself that the words on the page have accents/diacritics in them. --shreevatsa (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Many words do not have references on their article pages. It was easier to post one unreferenced template on the list hen to go through the list one by one. Is the assumption that the average reader should take the editor's word for the words existing, and that their spelling is indeed with accents? Verifiability still applies I think.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that's what you mean. Whether a word is spelt with accents or not is often a matter of house style, as some words have demonstrably lost their accents over time. The top of the article already says something to that effect; it would be better to expand on that (if you wish), instead of a baffling "needs references" notice. --shreevatsa (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Binary prefices

Hey Shreevy, I suggest you go look at a dictionary. Prefices is indeed a word and is the plural of prefix. 84.9.125.170 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)\

[edit] Dice

You recently made an edit to Dice suggesting that "Dice" was the plural form of the word "die" or "dice". The use of "dice" to describe a single die is overused, but incorrect. I am curious as to why you have made this edit. I have not reverted anything. There might be method behind the madness after all... Rekov (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I came to that page because someone confused me recently on what the singular form of "dice" was, and followed the reference in the first line to the Compact OED entry which says "USAGE In modern English the singular die (rather than dice) for sense 1 is now uncommon. Dice is widely used for both the singular and the plural." So I made that edit. But soon after doing that, I read a bit more from other places, and concluded that singular "dice" was incorrect, and the OED entry has been changed too, although that page does not reflect it yet. (Or something like that.) I changed my mind; I have reverted it now. shreevatsa (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)