User talk:Xerxesnine

Super Bowl[edit]

You've made lots of good edits, so why are you suddenly vandalizing? --Jnelson09 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap!! I did an undo on 147.92.2.47's "is gay". Sorry, I don't know how that happened. --Xerxesnine

OK, I believe you. It's just that there's so many homophobes in this world, you can't trust anyone. No hard feelings, I hope. --Jnelson09 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism removal[edit]

I noticed you've been keeping up with several persistent vandals. I'm curious why you're "undo"-ing rather than reverting. With conseucitve vandalism edits, it always seemed easier to me to edit and save the last good version rather than using the "undo" link (which is more helpful when a bad edit has been superseded by other edits). Just curious/trying to help. Good luck! --Fru1tbat 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandals[edit]

Heh, you're probably right. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 04:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of spamming[edit]

I caution you to assume good faith. I have no affiliation with freecomputerbooks.com or any of the parties in the dispute about its external link on C++. I have independently evaluated that link, and have found it to be more informative than multiuple existing external links. That it is ad-supported or referral-supported has no bearing. Tens of thousands of our external links are to such ad-supported sites. Furthermore, if you would have checked User talk:Yamla, you would have seen that I have already discussed this issue there before replacing the link.

Please discuss this on Talk:C++. Thank you. AnAccount2 22:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urod == User:AnAccount2 ?[edit]

You said: "Hello, have you done much in attempting to expose these likely sockpuppets? Since this person is an especially persistent nuisance, I would be willing to pursue it myself. I only ask because I don't want to step on your heels if you've already started."

I haven't. There's not much I can do without checkuser access, especially given that neither account is currently blocked. It does look at least strongly possible that they are the same person, though. --Yamla 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very upset about your unfounded accusation of spamming. I am considering leaving the project because of people like you, but I want to try dispute resolution first. If you agree to participate in dispute resolution, then please post a question at the Village Pump asking whether the link I want to insert is spam. AnAccount2 07:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Right. Of course. Great idea. I'll pursue that immediately. In the meantime, please stop spamming. Xerxesnine 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAII[edit]

hi Xerxesnine: thanks for the feedback. Sorry I made a mess of the RAII article. Coming back to C++ from C# and Python, I forgot just how many layers of "nuance" and dark corners there are in the C++ programming language. <:\ Thanks for your patience and persistence as a Wikipedia contributor. Runtime

Re: C++ hello world[edit]

You were right that std::cout requires an #include <iostream>, but why did you leave in the #include <ostream> directive? There is no need for that surely? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 20:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[...] Interesting (and thanks for the info). Have you a link to info about any such compilers? As a point of reference, The C++ Programming Language lists the 'hello world' program without the #include <ostream> line. Would that not make compilers which don't include <ostream> in <iostream> non-standard? -- drrngrvy ^tlk @ 01:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of "Hello World" change[edit]

ok, I'm getting a little frustrated with heavy-handed admins reversing my changes. Here are a couple of points that, as an embedded systems programmer, I have experienced that warrants the change in the 'Hello World' application code:

   I understand the reasoning behind including <ostream> in addition to <iostream>, because there exists a theoretical system that would produce compiler errors while remaining perfectly adherent to the C++ standard, as the standard does not explicitly require ostream to be included by iostream.
   == However ==, There also exists an (equally likely) system that adhers to the C++ standard that will error as a result of the current "Hello World" code. The problem exists because compilers in general have no method to detect whether a header file has been included multiple times. It is up to the implementation of ostream.h whether compilation directives protecting the double-inclusion of the header file are in place.

     Less-common versions of the C++ compiler (e.g., Microchip's for the pic18) may not have these directives, and as such the Hello World application will fail to compile.

That said, I have modified the Hello World code to avoid both of these scenarios, and compile well in *any* system. I have done this anonymously, so this is not a matter of pride. I am simply trying to bring Wikipedia up to the level of consistency it pretends to adher to with the inclusion of ofstream in the first place.

At worst, the code I have provided is no less correct, and is no less clear, than the previous version, while retaining portability. I beg the Wikipedia administrative community to please, please get over their meaningless convictions over this issue and allow an objectively more correct version of the hello world application to grace the page on c++.

3RR warning[edit]

You are a long way off from violating WP:3RR on C++, while the anonymous user has already violated this policy, but you have two reversions so far and I have warned him, so I thought I'd remind you of this policy in the unlikely case you aren't aware. Once again, you appear in no danger of violating this policy, I'm just making sure. --Yamla 20:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Xercesnine![edit]

Thank you for finally putting your pride behind you and seeing things my way. The C++ article is a more valuable resource as a result. 207.207.127.254 (talk · contribs)

Perhaps if you had discussed this civilly on the C++ talk page, rather than warring on the page itself, we might have reached this agreement sooner. Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus, not "pride" and "seeing things my way". Hopefully, you will take this lesson to heart going forward. ATren 02:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that making useful edits to an important page was considered 'warring'. I thought that's what Wikipedia was about, allowing any user to add content without an authentication procedure. I am disappointed to learn that I am wrong, and that some users have taken it upon themselves to diligently undo any edits they don't agree with, under the guise of 'consensus'. 207.207.127.254 (talk · contribs)

Yes, you were warring. Yes, you were wrong. Your IP could have been blocked for repeatedly reverting three other editors who had already discussed this issue extensively on the talk page. I suggest you read the appropriate guidelines so you understand how things work here, so you don't have these conflicts in the future. ATren 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect C++?[edit]

We might consider asking an admin to semi-protect this article if the hello world wars continue... ATren 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Xerxesnine[edit]

I really wish you could just be civil about this whole thing, Xerxes. It doesn't seem right that, while you constantly revert to the version *you* want my talk page to be, then tattletail to the admins when I make it more readable, you continue to erase my comments on your own talk page. Seems a bit...hypocritical, don't you think? 207.207.127.254 (talk • contribs)

Do you understand that it's not YOUR talk page? It's a talk page for an IP address, and that IP address is on a shared computer. You are attempting to take ownership of this shared talk page, and that's why Xerxesnine and others have reverted your changes. If you want your own talk page, create an account with a username. Until then, stop treating the shared IP talk page as your own, and realize that Xerxesnine was doing nothing wrong by reverting your changes to this shared IP talk page. ATren 03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? which computer is it shared on? 207.207.127.254 (talk • contribs)

Read the large box labelled "Attention" on your IP talk page for details. In that message, it is clearly stated that the IP address belongs to a university, and that you should create an account if you want to avoid conflicts with other users who may share this address (which may happen if this address is a proxy server or dynamic IP). ATren 04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Admin Badgering[edit]

   I never realized how often you badger admins to attack me. This is probably why I thought the Wikipedia admins were so cruel.

Why all the personal attacks? Have I done something wrong?

This isn't the spirit of Wikipedia.

In other news, the edits that I made in good faith to the hello world example have finally been accepted by the Wikipedia community. Yes, the hello world code that you warned and even banned me temporarily for defending is now the standard. Maybe next time you will treat people trying to help the community with respect instead of just wildly abusing your privilidges. -Norvig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.95.70 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAII again[edit]

It's been almost a month since my change to RAII, which you initially rejected. I've put changes back in, as well as justification. I'm not sure if you agree, disagree, or have even seen it, but since you were the one who rejected it initially, I explicitly invite you to review my latest changes/defense. 75.130.108.174 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]