User talk:Zundark/archive2010

The Fermt Solution

I did read to what you refered to and It is his proof,however it did not give the solution or conjecture.(Pirsquard (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC))

The proof is the solution. --Zundark (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 Taiwan and China

Regarding your question, I was not the one who referenced the ISO page. In any case, there's nothing wrong with putting in the official names of the countries, and inserting the flag, since so many places in the list (French Polynesia, Hong Kong, Macao, Isle of Man, etc.) have their flags shown. Unless there's a particular bias against Taiwan, I don't see why it should be singled out. --Mistakefinder (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The table lists the names according to the standard. That's the purpose of the table. Changing a name to one that you prefer is unacceptable, because it makes the table incorrect. I don't care about the flags - if all you had done was add a flag, or remove all the flags, I wouldn't have reverted. As for the reference, of course you didn't add it - you changed a true statement about it into a false statement. Why did you do that? And what is this edit? --Zundark (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As creator of William McGonagall, this may be of interest to you

Category:Poetasters is proposed for deletion!
Object or support -- voice your view 'ere completion!
Shall Wikipedia ignore the profound connections among all
The glorious rhymsters like William McGonagall,
McIntyre, Moore, McKittrick Ros,
Or J. Gordon Coogler (some might think it a loss),
But others [to comply with WP:CANVASS provisions],
Might deem this deletion a darn good decision.
Decide for yourself, and (here [1]) make your views known,
On the category for poets for badness renowned!
-- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

More history merging in your userspace

Hi Zundark, I've just history merged your user talk page. Some of the edits came from Talk:Zundark, while some of them were imported from the Nostalgia Wikipedia. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 07:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Zundark (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfy

Could you userfy Morning Coffee (Firefox Add-on). Thanks, Mikemoral♪♫ 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't do that, since the page has been deleted and I'm not an admin. You should probably ask Jclemens (and ask about Morning Coffee (Firefox add-on), not Morning Coffee (Firefox Add-on), since the latter was just a redirect). --Zundark (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I must have read the watchlist wrong. Sorry, about that. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the adviceCj1340 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall constituencies

Hi Zundark, just a quick note to thank you for updating the redrawn contituencies in Cornwall – well done, that editor! If you have time, I am sure that WP:Cornwall will greatly appreciate any further work you can do on these updates. There is a List of civil parishes in Cornwall that might be handy in that regard. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum suicide and immortality

Hi there, if you have some time and interest, please take a look at: Talk:Quantum suicide and immortality#Encyclopedic_relevance_and_other_issues to discuss some issues with that page. Thanks. Bode One (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Circle

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle&direction=prev&oldid=243084

Why did you create it with the word "center" misspelled? --138.110.25.31 (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't create the article - the oldest surviving edit is by Josh Grosse (but he probably didn't create the article either - the system didn't keep a full edit history in those days). Secondly, the spelling centre is correct, as a quick look in a dictionary would have shown you. --Zundark (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I linked to the oldest edit, and it was attributed to you. At least, there's no "previous revision" link like on later versions. And "center" is the correct spelling. --138.110.25.31 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The missing "Previous revision" link is strange, but I've seen that before with very old edits (2001 / early 2002) - I think a lot of old edit information is corrupt for some reason. In any case, you can see the earliest surviving edit at the bottom of the revision history. (Also, you may be surprised to learn that I don't consider you a very reliable source for English spelling compared to Merriam-Webster.) --Zundark (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My source is the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. And the edit you linked to was from 2004; yours was from 2001. --138.110.25.31 (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering the difficulty you are having reading the revision history, I'm not going to trust your reading of that dictionary (which in any case has a title that suggests it may be a little parochial). Try scrolling down to the bottom of that page, which is where the 2001 edits are. (Or, if you prefer, check the nostalgia Wikipedia.) --Zundark (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to resort to personal attacks. Besides, reversing the order of edits should reverse the order of the edits. That only reverses the order of the pages, which is the cause of the confusion. --138.110.206.101 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)