User talk:Zarvok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Recent Articles

I read your work on Cayley's formula. Thanks, it saved me on the test I just had.

[edit] rule of product

I think you're confused if you think pairwise disjointness is relied on here. I've fixed it. Michael Hardy 23:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Sorry for the error, your version is much better. --Zarvok

[edit] Premeditation

Thanks for flagging the article for Wiktionary. I've registered an account now. Cheers. jw 00:41, 01 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've sorta been taking a WikiVacation...

If you want to help out, go ahead. I kinda tired of it, because it seems no one else was into doing more than nominating one or two COTW's. ral315 04:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester, New Hampshire

Hi Zarvok, My apologies, I didn't explain the revert on the article's talk page (I'll do that in a bit, and add the original complaint from WP:CP).

[edit] NBG axioms

You're welcome. Randall Holmes 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The instructions for clearing a copyright violation like this is to revert the article to the version before the first violation occurred, thus removing not only the violation, but any possible derivative work. The instructions are at WP:CP

The copyrighted material was added by User:Dfollensbee last July and so the article was reverted back that far. Unfortunately, this also deleted a lot of good edits, including your own. Sorry about that, copyright violations really suck. --Duk 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ZOMG OUR KERNEL IS DONE!!!

Carmiendo 20:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 212.248.236.248

The above user has now been blocked for forty-eight hours, as per your comments on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singular they

Yes, I see your point and I don't entirely disagree. I changed it anyway because:

  1. That article had been edited by an IP who, in a series of edits, went through it and changed several uses of the word he to they, when referring to a hypothetical backgammon player, which strikes me as just as silly as my reaction to singular they and unwarranted on an article that is stable and in good shape.
  2. Not everybody agrees with Liberman. (I did look up singular they before reverting.)
  3. It grates on my ears. (Is it possible for something to grate on one's ears when one is reading it?)

You will also note that my edit summary mentions that the manual of style does not require gender-neutral pronouns so there was no good reason for the edit I was reverting. Quite honestly, I didn't like the edit, didn't like the agenda I perceived behind it, but didn't want to revert without some kind of rational-looking edit summary. Curses, caught crimson-fisted.

By the way, how did you happen to notice the edit? Are you stalking me or do you play much backgammon? (This is a joke. Do not report me to an incidents noticeboard.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you just call me reasonable? I protest bitterly against this base calumny. Now where's that WP:NPA template? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)