• 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)

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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[reply]

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! BDAbramson T 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]