User talk:Zundark/archive2006-2008

Disambiguation pages
In regard of your edit, please have a look at 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 Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) didn't exist and 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)

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)

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)

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

Please check your WP:NA listing.
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on 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: Thank you, and have a wiki-wiki day! BD2412 T 02:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

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! -- De ryc k C.  15:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Topological spaces
See Talk:Topological_space


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

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)

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)

Image:Amazons.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Amazons.png, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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
 * and 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 wordsdeeds 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 wordsdeeds 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

S3
Hi Zundark, are you certain S3 is not nilpotent? See my post at the talk page for Solvable group. Thanks,Rich 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * $$S_3$$ is centreless, so it's not nilpotent. See also my reply on Talk:Solvable group. --Zundark 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Common Era
A discussion is in progress at talk:Common Era about whether US or UK spelling should be used in that article. Since you seem to be the original editor, you may wish to participate. --Gerry Ashton 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BitstreamVera.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:BitstreamVera.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's public domain, and is tagged as such. --Zundark 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporal and Casual relations in conditional probability
Greetings. I am questioning the fact that temporal and casual relations are mentioned in the conditional probability article. I think it was you who introduced it, so you may wish to enter the discussion. Thanks. --zeycus 4:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't introduced by me. It was introduced by Wile E. Heresiarch on 10 February 2004. See the edit history. --Zundark 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Internet top-level domains
Sorry for bothering you... the title of the article doesn't say that only existing TLDs should be listed and not the reserved ones. I would like to discuss this with you... I think the reserved TLDs should be mentioned too, and if not directly in the list of the countries - then maybe somewhere below in an extra section. As I said in my post in the discussion page to the article mentioned above, I think they should be mentioned too, and my intention is to find a solution for that problem. You do not like to have the reserved ones in the article but I would really want them. So why not create a section about reserved and, maybe, miscellaneous ones? I believe that would end a lot of problems. You wouldn't need to delete TLDs as they come in if they're only reserved. All right, I'll check in here and into the discussion page of the article tomorrow night, and I hope we'll find a solution that fits us all! ;) --Maxl 22:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This list is one of the very few correct TLD lists in existence. (In fact, last time I checked, I couldn't find another such list - the web is full of incorrect TLD lists.) It would be a great shame to turn it into just another list of TLDs-and-things-aren't-TLDs. Also note that the current list is completely objective: either the TLD is in the root, or it isn't. As soon as you start talking about "reserved TLDs" this objectivity is lost (What does "reserved" mean? Who says it's reserved? Aren't all unused 2-letter codes reserved? Is  reserved? Is   reserved? ...). Please don't start adding things like this amongst the real TLDs. A separate table would be OK, but it should be on a separate page - the list of TLDs is so long that people scrolling quickly to the bottom may not realise that they've strayed into a list of non-TLDs. --Zundark 08:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and I almost forgot: Happy Easter! ;) ;) --Maxl 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And a Happy Easter to you! --Zundark

Central/Eastern Europe
Your argument based on UN clasification is ridiculous. According to UN there is nothing like Central Europe. Is it also your point of view? --Cepek 14:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? The only thing I have done recently that is remotely connected with what you are talking about is my edit to the Eastern Europe article, where I fixed the statement of the UNSD's definition of Eastern Europe and used the edit summary "fix list to match reference, remove self-link". I made no argument based on the UN classification, so I think you must be confusing me with someone else. --Zundark 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It were you who reverted my edit (I removed Czech republic and Poland from Eastern Europe article). UNSD does not take into account existence of Central Europe. Is not it strange? You cannot talk about history of Europe and ignore phenomenon of Central Europe. But who cares? --Cepek 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did in effect revert your edit. You didn't remove the Czech Republic and Poland from the Eastern Europe article, you only removed them from the list of countries that the UNSD classifies under Eastern Europe. Your edit was wrong, since the UNSD does classify the Czech Republic and Poland under Eastern Europe, as can be seen from the UN webpage linked in that article. The Eastern Europe article goes on to explain how other definitions of Eastern Europe differ from the UNSD one - so by stating the UNSD definition incorrectly, you were messing up the entire article. Any division of Europe into a handful of regions is bound to be arbitrary, and I have no interest in discussing the merits or demerits of the way the UNSD chooses to do it. --Zundark 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy Easter to you! --Cepek 15:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Xiangqi.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Xiangqi.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The image was actually uploaded by Andreas Kaufmann. I merely recompressed it, as can be seen from the file history. It would make more sense to talk to him about it. --Zundark 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I figured if you were modifying the image, then you were a recent editor to Xiangqi, or at least a concerned party, so that's why I picked you to notify, especially considering that Andreas Kaufmann is only a sporadic contributor these days.  howcheng  {chat} 16:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

removal of link from H.264 page
hi I  was  wondering why you removed the link to a blog on the H.264  (videocodecs.blogspot.com) It seems to be quite a good piece of work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abcdwiki (talk • contribs) 07:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I removed it because it was added by someone who was doing nothing but adding videocodecs.blogspot.com links to numerous articles (linkspamming). There were actually two links added to the H.264 article, one of which clearly doesn't belong there. If you think that the other link is genuinely a worthwhile external link for that article, then you are free to add it yourself. --Zundark 07:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Vector-images.com image warning
Greetings, You are being contacted by BetacommandBot and by Zscout370. The reason for this message is that you have have uploaded Image:Papua New Guinea arms.png under the following license Template:Vector-images.com. Recently, a decision was made about images and anything not meeting freedomdefined.org will be considered "unfree" for Wikimedia's purposes. The terms of the website do not allow their images to be used now under our new guidelines. You are being given a chance to relicense the image for about two weeks. If you fail to relicense the image, there is a good chance the image will be deleted from Wikipedia. If you have any questions or concern, please see Zscout370. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Group Action
Thanks for cleaning up group action. I had already posted in the talk page, but I don't think it was read. JackSchmidt 11:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

N00b
Hey I just started Wikipedia, but I am addicted to Bulbapedia, so I kind of know the ropes. Do you have any advice for me? User:AgentDeath —Preceding comment was added at 18:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on User talk:AgentDeath. --Zundark 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wow
Hello there, Zundark.

Frankly, I find it fascinating that you don't seem to have a sysop flag. I figured you had one from the old days. You may be aware of the the current climate that exists regarding RfA, but I can see no problem should you feel the flag might help your editing. Reply if you'd like, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. If you have no interest, pay no regard and keep up the good work. Thanks, and happy editing. Keegan talk 08:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I prefer just to be an ordinary editor. --Zundark 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Group theory stubs like metanilpotent group
Howdy, I noticed you've helped fix quite a few really stubby group theory articles. Lots of them appear to be more in line with the ideas at http://groupprops.wiki-site.com/ which might be described as sort of a hyperlinked dictionary / database thing.

I've wanted to WP:BB and clean up some of this, but I wouldn't mind the opinion of an editor who knows that polynilpotent = solvable and that distinguishing them is silly.

The easiest task I see is to delete a bunch of the categories created around this time. In particular, I think "Abelian groups" is a dandy category, but "Solvable groups" is pushing it, and "Nilpotent groups", "p-groups", and "properties of subgroups" are just silly.

Here is the list of categories I'd propose deleted:
 * Category:Group automorphisms
 * Category:Functional subgroups
 * Category:Properties of groups
 * Category:Solvable groups
 * Category:Nilpotent groups
 * Category:p-groups
 * Category:Subgroup properties

Before the categories are actually deleted, it might be wise to merge the stubs with verifiable bulleted factoids into larger, sensible articles. Most of the category Group automorphisms could become a single article, with the relationships expressed on a single page, for instance. Some of the stubs might just be WP:OR, but perhaps it would not be hard to add a sentence or two to a larger article explaining the concept and its relation to more standard encyclopedic fare.

Once the articles are verified, merged, and/or deleted, one would then use the bigger categories like Category:Group theory, Category:Abelian group theory, Category:Finite groups, etc. for those articles and delete the too specific ones.

If you like categories and classification, I'd also mention that Category:Representation theory is a complete mess. Ideally the taxonomy would be a factored DAG representation of a poset, but it has loops and redundant edges (a->c and a->b->c) and no consistent naming convention. This has had a somewhat negative influence on representation theory articles as well, but this category crosses more fields of expertise than the group theory categories, so I'd handle it later.

P.S. How do you link to categories without categorizing the page?

(P.S. stands for pre-script by the way) JackSchmidt (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Help:Category came up recently. I added links to the categories. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of those group theory stubs seem to have been created by the same person, and they are often inaccurate. The concepts covered by the stubs are generally legitimate (though maybe not worthy of separate articles), but I wouldn't be sorry to see many of them deleted - articles providing incorrect information on obscure group theory concepts are hardly a benefit to Wikipedia. But I don't have any opinion on the organization of categories - I don't know how users use categories (and I suspect that the typical Wikipedia user doesn't use them at all), so I don't know what organization is best (and suspect that it doesn't really matter anyway). --Zundark (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Why Wikipedia is so great
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Slender groups
I haven't found any reference for "slender group" meaning noetherian, but the Nunke definition is definitely standard, so thanks for adding that. I added a textbook reference as well, so that it doesn't appear to be an obscure idea. There is another Fuchs reference (his and Salce's on modules over valuation rings) that could be used for slender modules as well, if you are interested in such things. JackSchmidt (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bokononism
An editor has nominated Bokononism, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fractal Compression
Hi Zundark, we are having a dispute on the Fractal Compression page and your input would be most welcome. Thanks, Spot (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't really know anything about fractal compression. (I guess you're asking me because my edit of 8 October 2001 is the oldest recorded edit for that article. But in those days Wikipedia didn't keep complete edit histories, and my edit summary shows that I was just fixing a link.) --Zundark (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Country Codes page
Dear Zundark: I'm addressing an earlier post of mine to you, since you appear to be involved in discussion on this topic (country codes, etc.) - I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so please pardon any newbie errors. After your corrections, I read up on the rules regarding external links. So here is the situation: CommonDataHub is a relatively new service that makes available various code sets, one of which is country codes (other subject areas are coming up). It strives to provide information and mapping that is not available elsewhere, and people have found it quite useful. (If it matters - much of the information there is available free without any registration, some of it requires a paid subscription.) Unfortunately, since I am affiliated with it, according to the rules I cannot add that link here. Could you kindly review www.commondatahub.com, and if you feel it is relevant and useful to the public, please add it as an external link. Would appreciate if you could let me know either way. Thank you, Sincerely, Mkwk567 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stripping (Chemistry) page
Hi Zundark, I am working on developing the article about stripping in separatin processes. I saw you made a few minor edits to the page and appreciate the help. I am looking to add more practical applications or variables in the stripping process but am having a difficult time finding additional information. Do you have any idea where I might be able to find such information? I would like to expand this article as much as I can but am running a bit short. If you have other ideas I am open to those too of course. Any help you can give really is appreciated. Many thanks. --Hazzimoto (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it's not something that I know much about, so I can't help you. --Zundark (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Open Root Server Confederation
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Open Root Server Confederation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? 217.184.142.47 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alpha Centauri
Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, many apologies. I think I changed My Preferences, which has changed the Menu Bar. I must have just clicked the wrong item. I have not wanting to delete this anyway, as i've just spent ages updating the References. Humblest apologies.Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

infinitesimals
Hi, I noticed you have made edits at hyperreal number. I have recently done some work at non-standard analysis, non-standard calculus, transfer principle, standard part function, hyperinteger. Please take a look if you get a chance to make sure there are no (new) errors :) Katzmik (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re deletion of "Alexander R. Povolotsky's problem 1"
Please see my thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Apovolot (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars
Dear Zundark,

I don't want to engage in any edit wars so could you please discuss any issues on the talk page of that article instead of breaking WP:3RR (Yes, I have broken it too but I have given reasons for my reverts and requested you several times to discuss any issues with the article on the talk page). Also, make sure you prove (or reference) any assertions you make. Hopefully we can get back to friendly collaboration.

P.S I also fixed up cosmic space. Thanks for pointing those errors out.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither of us has broken the three-revert rule (maybe you missed the "24 hours" part). The only reason you have ever given for your reverts is that "the Hausdorff condition is needed so that compact->closed", but I pointed out 18 days ago why "compact->closed" wasn't needed, and you still keep reverting.


 * P.S. The cosmic space article is still wrong, but I dare not edit it for fear of another edit war. Please don't write articles on subjects that you don't know anything about. --Zundark (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Which subject don't I know anything about? I do not claim to be the 'best topologist' there is but I certainly know topology (I am a topologist). Please avoid to be rude since what you said about my knowledge is impertinent to the discussion.

Topology Expert (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to cosmic spaces. Are you going to fix that article? If you can't fix it due to your lack of knowledge, how can you say that this lack of knowledge is not pertinent? --Zundark (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept that I had made a mistake on topological group and I think that cosmic space is fixed up now. The statement written currently in topological group (disputed earlier) cannot be generalized so I think we can leave it at that (but you can remove the 'Hausdorff' bit in the brackets since you were right).

Topology Expert (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you've worked this out, although removing the 'Hausdorff' in brackets makes the 'Therefore' rather dubious. It would be better to go back to how it was on 4 November.


 * The cosmic space article still has problems. I know how to fix it now, so I can do this if you like. --Zundark (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Hausdorff condition in the hypothesis.

Topology Expert (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayback
Please use http://web.archive.org Internet Archive Wayback Machine as replacement links for deleted websites instead of simply deleting links without replacement. Thanks. 91.94.161.26 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do use archive.org sometimes. But the link you're referring to was worthless as a reference, so I just removed it. --Zundark (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But in this way reference to statement that this approach to Enochian is NOT "pure and undefiled", as Bible declares Adamic language, thus without any borrowings is gone, resulting in putting FACT tags, and finally in deletion of this statement, which is not wanted. 91.94.161.26 (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But the linked page doesn't qualify as a reliable source, so the statement is liable to be deleted anyway. If you're that worried about it being deleted, you should find a proper reference. --Zundark (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This linked page at least proofs by appropiate word listing, that this Enochian has Akkadian, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Iberian and English substrates. In this way this page can serve as reference to fact of inclusion of many confused tongue substrates inside this Enochian, while true Adamic language as "pure and undefiled" never contained any substrates of confused words. 91.94.161.26 (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)