User talk:Melchoir/Archive4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Soil

I am pretty sure this project will interest you. You are needed. Cheers! -- Paleorthid 07:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry to disappoint, but my recent edits in that direction were just to help out a new user. I actually know squat about soil. Good luck with the project though! Melchoir 07:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Carbonated beer

Not all beer has carbon dioxide added to it. A lot of beers are carbonated naturally (especially in Europe, Russia, Africa and South America). Same with cider and other fermented beverages. If you wish to say that a certain beverage has naturally occuring carbonatation, then the category Fermented Beverages already does that. If you wish to say that beer is a force-carbonated beverage, then you would need to pick and choose your beers with care - a blanket categorisation would be inappropriate. And, because beers are available in both naturally carbonated and force-carbonated states, you might need to consider breaking the category down into Naturally Carbonated and Force Carbonated. Hmmmm. It could get awkward as some beers are available in both naturally carbonated and force carbonated conditions. Some beers - such as cask conditioned beers - allow the natural carbonation to burn off so they end up as uncarbonated as wine and water. That is, there is some carbon dioxide present, but it's so soft as not to be noticable. I can see that there might be some interest and value in having force-carbonated beers identified as a breed apart from naturally carbonated beers, but it would be a tricky task to do, and might be more trouble than it is worth. SilkTork 07:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was strange for me to see that beer's only category was one shared with wine, which usually isn't carbonated. But I'm no expert, and yes, it all does sound like trouble! Melchoir 07:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pando

Thanks for commenting on the Pando (Quaking Aspen) article. We are currently trying to have it achieve featured article status. Any input on its peer review would be helpful. Thank you again. Globeism 16:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Electrons and light

Hi, Melchoir. I read your comments at talk:Electron and I think I incorporated what I learned there into the Electron article. Please check my edits carefully. Thanks! --Uncle Ed 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"Adidas" is "adidas"

Techincally, "Adidas" is actually "adidas". The official title of the page is capitalized because of technical issues. NoseNuggets 5:50 PM US EDT June 11 2006

Did you see my link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)? The vanity of trademark owners does not force us to break the rules of English. See also the article Adidas itself, which uses "Adidas" throughout, and Talk:Adidas, where this very issue was beaten to death not so long ago. Melchoir 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

new page patrollers

Melchoir, sorry to pester you; I have been quiet, though busy submitting articles, for some time. One of my articles was picked up on by a user called ValentinejoeSmith, who is labelled on his userpage as a new article patroller. I know it's a self-labelling. He has had an account for a shorter time than I have. Given that I, as I have indicated to you, would like to be an admin as and when I have enough experience, am I missing out on something?--Anthony.bradbury 22:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase? Melchoir 22:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to express my neophytic urge to be helpful.--Anthony.bradbury 22:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well, if you have a specific question about newpage patrolling I'll be glad to answer it, but it seems like you know what's up. Melchoir 22:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir, I want to be helpful and constructive, and I am learning what's up. I feel that I could help new users, but I don't know how to locate them. I feel I could help users writing their first articles, but cannot identify them. Should I just keep quiet and write articles, or can I help? If so, how?--Anthony.bradbury 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're asking how you can join the effort. Well, the best hub for information is Wikipedia:Welcoming committee; it's got a lot of great links, too many for me to reproduce here. Another approach is Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, especially the "Patrolling new pages" section, which offers advice on hanging around Special:Newpages. Often new contributors will enter Wikipedia by starting a new article, even if they're not completely ready for it, and they'll probably need more help than the users who enter by correcting typos. Generally, on Special:Newpages the new users will be the ones whose talk pages are redlinks; this means that no one has welcomed them yet. Melchoir 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the offer of help, and the useful links in case I need it. Keep well. SteveH 11:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you too! Melchoir 11:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Noble rhubarb

Hi Melchoir - thanks for the note! I'll have a look at it tomorrow. A very useful source (for species for which accounts have been done) is the Flora of China (Rheum nobile is in). Hooker was actually a very good botanist, the only problems with his text is for the few species subsequently reclassified, and the archaic language and measurements; once they're all updated (and any opinion that would count as POV in wikipedia removed!), it's fairly safe to include. - MPF 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to it! Yeah, Hooker can get a little enthusiastic; I was amused by the "certainly by far the noblest species of Oak known". Melchoir 22:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Melchoir - I've had a quick run through - not a lot to add to what was already there. The main thing I changed was the distribution; Fl. China gives it a much wider range than just the eastern Himalaya. I've never really got the hang of embedded refs, could you check over in case I got the formatting wrong! I'll probably have another look later on, in case I think of anything else - MPF 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... my source says "endemic to the alpine zone of the eastern Himalayas" in passing while citing two papers that I don't have access to. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding? Ah well. The refs look fine. Melchoir 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 12, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Noble rhubarb, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

All caps

Can you peek at Martin_Beck_(vaudeville). I am disagreeing with another person on the proper use of ALL CAPS in headlines for the New York Times. I believe they should be reduced to "The Title Case" as the NYT itself does in its transcription project. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (ALL CAPS) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the proposed guideline, so I'd tend to agree with you. Why don't you contact the other user, explain your thoughts, and offer that same link to the Manual of Style? I'm sure there won't be violence over so small a matter! Melchoir 02:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First Timer

Hey there, you messaged me about my first article Houseboating and I was ust wondering if I'm doing things right? Ive never wikid before. I hope I'm not going to delete your whole page or soemthing by writing this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyberwiglet (talk • contribs) 03:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, see your talk page. Melchoir 03:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting it

Thanks, this is fun. I will try to figure out the style guide and make the necessary changes. Thanks again (Andrew Reed 03:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC))

It is, isn't it? Melchoir 03:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

copyvio

Hi, Melchoir; I came across an article called "Shi Xie" in random search. The English is dreadful, and it's clearly a translation of a pre-existing text. Hence a copyright violation as I cannot belive that a Chinese National would write such an article in Chinese and then translate it. It is admittedly an extraordinarily obscure topic. Do we care?--Anthony.bradbury 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a problem, if we can't find the original source. It is the kind of thing I'd care about, but without information there's not much we can do. Most of the writing seems to be from User:Littlelittleman4, who hasn't been around. You can still try asking him, I guess. Melchoir 22:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncat

Hold up a sec. I appreciate the thought, but could you stop uncategorizing the oil redirects, please? I'm in the process of turning redirects into stubs (see Talk:List of vegetable oils). It'd be great not to have to redo what I've done in putting them in the right category in the first place. That said, it's not a huge deal either way, if you really feel strongly about it. If you'd like to leave a comment on any of the talk pages of the oil pages you edited, I'll see it. Thanks. Waitak 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually do feel strongly about it. When you categorize a redirect, it gives the impression that there's an article with that name when there isn't. This is confusing and disappointing to the reader, and it frustrates possible collaboration, since other editors can't tell where the gaps in our coverage are. I appreciate the coordination work you've done at Talk:List of vegetable oils, but not everyone knows it's there; I didn't until just now! Anyway, is it so much extra work to copy in the category code during article/stub creation? Melchoir 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know just what you mean. I'm not doing wholesale categorization of redirects, though I see it might look like I am. I agonized for quite a while over what the right approach to stubs versus redirects might be. My philosophy for vegetable oil redirects has become:

• If there's nothing that points to it, delete it
• Go through and make proper stubs for all of the missing articles
• If a redirect exists that's pointed to by anything but List of vegetable oils, leave it, categorize it, but go back and write a stub reasonably soon.

I've just gone through the process of registering a stub template ({{vegetable-oil-stub}}) for the stub candidates in Talk:List of vegetable oils. So, no, it's not a lot of work to go back and redo the categories when I (and, I hope, others) write the stubs in the near future... but I'd still rather you'd leave them if you can deal with it. It's useful in the short term, and of very limited negative effect for all of the above reasons. Thanks for the gracious response. Waitak 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, obviously you've given this a lot of thought, and I'm certainly not going to go back and delete the cats again; how could I sleep at night if I started a revert war over redirect pages? Your plan makes sense, and there's nothing wrong with stubs. Melchoir 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Check sort peer review

Thought you might be interested in commenting on the Check sort and the Rapid sort method of performance analysis using Class determination rather than Big O notation. Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 22:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't the first idea! Melchoir 22:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

World cup group prods

Why are you taking down the nomination for deletion after only an hour or 2? Kingjeff 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to re-read the {{prod}} tags you added yourself. They say "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." I object. So I removed them. Melchoir 23:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither has happen and is impossible to do it. Kingjeff 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Melchoir 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to improve the article and I personally don't find your objection is credible. Kingjeff 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see you're attempting to AfD the articles. You haven't done this before, I guess? I'll help you out, but I won't write a reason for you. Melchoir 23:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

bothering

Melchoir; since you sent me the standard welcome message, I feel that I have bothered you more than I should have. If you feel that I should tap more generally available sources, I do hope that you will say so.--Anthony.bradbury 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm happy to help! Anyway, people tend to be more frank on the internet; rest assured that if you start annyoing me, or anyone else around here, we'll probably tell you! Melchoir 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming of article

Ah, yes, sorry about that. I didn't know that those sorts of plants had a "+" in their name. I'll be more careful next time. Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob, before today I'd never seen it either! Melchoir 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of notable person's family

George Garnier is most definitely a notable person, as is William Gray. In fact, infinitely more so than your pedantic, common, cantankerous, unworthy and wholly internet-based personality. Piss off.

Miami Vice 17:10, 19 June 2006

It has also occured to me that you have also taken part in deleting some of the most incredible topics (fact or fiction) ever devised by human-kind, including 'List of Magic Negroes' and List of notable people to have been stung by jellyfish'. You are an incredible bore.

I left several explanatory links on your talk page. Read them. Melchoir 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read them, but I don't really have any care for them. Those rules (or "guidelines") aren't much use when an article explaining that '0.9999...is equal to 1' is supposedly more valuable than those persons' pages that I created. Who are you to enforce these guidelines? I spent many hours trying to create amusing but informative articles on my friends (who are, at the very least, sons of important British families (families that exist on Wikipedia anyway) and are responsible for upholding their roles in society). The fact is that Wikipedia is a universal source of information and whether or not a person is notable is down to the opinion of the user. Yet you patrol the otherwise wonderful Wikipedia like a policeman when it really doesn't need policing at all, just looking after. You can cut away the branches and leaves that would naturally stem from the Wikipedia 'tree' but in the end one is left with something that is unnatural and, more severely, is in no way unique. It could be the fountain of knowledge that it strives to be but without the human, organic growth that it should sustain, it never will (partly with thanks to people like you). Good day.

Miami Vice 18:57, 19 June 2006 GMT

Wow. Melchoir 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be crass, particularly while I'm still typing. Miami Vice 18:59, 19 June 2006 GMT

Do you have any idea how common it is for egotistical kids to write articles on themselves in Wikipedia? Do you know how many no-name American teens fill the ranks you have just eagerly joined?

This place is built on a few fundamental principles: WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. These principles, in turn, demand that we delete the vanity pages you people write about yourselves. Of course Wikipedia needs policing. If we didn't get rid of all your silly autobiographies, it would be MySpace within a week. Melchoir 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that you haven't really taken in anything I've actually written to you on your talk page, let alone the articles that I've been creating today. If it was looked after properly it would most certainly not turn into MySpace or a half-arsed version of Google for that matter. Instead it would be the single most valuable website in the world.

And please don't ever bung me into the same group as "no-name American teens" because that's the same group of people that you once were part of. And I could never possibly be a part of that. How truly offensive.

What a completely unexpected reaction. Look, is there a reason you're still talking to me? Melchoir 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Only one, since you're obviously the voice of reason here - let's say that I sourced the facts that I stated on my friend's articles - e.g. The fact that George Garnier is actually son of Edward Garnier MP and that he has recently photographed Will Self as well as the editor of The Times - would they still have been deleted?

I can only speculate, since I did not delete the article and I don't know what sources you have in mind. If it's georgegarnier.com, forget it. Otherwise, who knows? Just keep in mind that verifiability is not the only policy around here. Melchoir 19:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Erk

[1]. I am horrified at my mistake there, and that it sat so long! Thanks for fixing it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup! Melchoir 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

new page

Melchoir, I am doing some new page patrolling, and hit a page called "list of topics in sexual ethics". I left it alone. Is it all right?--Anthony.bradbury 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any glaring problems right off the bat. If you have a concern, you could always leave a note on the talk page or contact the author. If you just have a gut feeling, but you're not sure what's wrong, perhaps Wikipedia:Cleanup resources will give you ideas? Melchoir 00:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike

We actually did the same thing twice - I realized what I had done and reverted it, but it didn't go through because it was identical to yours. Jinks. Supadawg - Talk 00:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Melchoir 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New editors/articles

Melchoir, I have taken you at your word (I hope). I have labelled myself as a new page patroller; I have been inserting welcome templates in the talk pages of apparently serious new users (not many) adding wikify templates (quite a lot) adding stub messages where obviously called for, and flagging a few articles for deletion where they were obviously autobiographical, content-free or obscene. Am I supposed to do this, or should I leave these things for an admin?--Anthony.bradbury 16:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you're allowed to do tasks that, in other communities, might be left to admins. In fact, it's encouraged, and as a non-admin patroller myself, let me be the first to thank you for pitching in! Generally speaking, if the wiki software doesn't bar you from doing something for not being an admin, the community isn't going to bar you either. And one last thought: taking an interest in administrative tasks and generally "acting as if you're an admin" is, or so I hear, one of the best ways to demonstrate competence and trustworthiness so that the community will actually make you an admin later on. So, keep up the good work, and be bold! Melchoir 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. A piece of information, please. In marking new articles for deletion, I know about{db-bio} and {db-empty} (I have used only one bracket to avoid generating the message). What word does one use to label an obscene article, given that {db-obscene} doesn't work?--Anthony.bradbury 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A full list of db tags is at WP:CSD. For an obscene article, {{db-attack}} or {{nonsense}}, or simply {{d}}, might be appropriate. By the way, you can use {{tl}} to mention templates without using them, like I've done here. Melchoir 18:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

{{db-vand}} might also work. Melchoir 19:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Melchoir: Thanks for your edits of the new article Flue gas stack that I created last night. I don't really mind one way or the other, but I am curious as to why you thought the pluralized article title needed to be singularized (if I may invent a few words). - mbeychok 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Sorry for not linkking to it earlier! Melchoir 19:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I have found two articles (both by editor called Helicopter). One is called "Mcdonalds"; one is called "Mcdonalds restaurants". leaving aside the possibility of classing them as advertising, they should be merged, but I don't know the template to add to suggest this. Help.--Anthony.bradbury 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the user or the articles, but the tags you seek are at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources#Merging and splitting. Melchoir 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I spelled him wrong; it's Helicoptor.--Anthony.bradbury 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. User:Helicoptor appears to have made a clumsy attempt to split McDonald's into several sub-articles. If you're familiar with Wikipedia:Summary style, you could help out that effort, I guess. Or to recombine the pieces, most of the work has already been done, and the satellite articles could be nominated for deletion or redirected back to the original. The safeest thing to do is to ask around on Talk:McDonald's; I'm sure plenty of people are watching it. Melchoir 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

copy-vio

Melchoir: going back to my comment about User Helicoptor; please take a look at this guy's output just this evening. No-one can write that many well-written articles that fast, surely? He has got to be pinching the stuff from somewhere.--Anthony.bradbury 23:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right, he seems to be copying content from other Wikipedia articles without coming out and saying so. A few users have left helpful messages at User talk:Helicoptor, so we probably don't need to do anything more for now. Melchoir 23:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Email

I'd like to email you privately but you have not configured the "email this user function". Could you please email me user said function and tell me your email address? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, sorry, I've now reactivated the feature. I guess I never confirmed it after that became a requirement. Melchoir 18:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

editor tracing

Hi: another question (I seem to find so many). I know it is possible to locate all the edits of a named author, and i'm sure it's stupidly easy when you know. How do you do it?--Anthony.bradbury 01:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No prob, if you visit the user's user page or talk page, the "User contributions" link will appear in the toolbox on the left-hand side of the screen. Melchoir 04:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I said it would be stupidly easy!--Anthony.bradbury 11:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

major revisions complete

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sunflower and Fibonacci number

Thanks for asking. I added the sunflower head image since I made it the other day with the Fibonacci in mind and although I am sure the image is relevant for the article [2] I would prefer to leave it for someone more qualified to add the right commentary. Shyamal 05:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the link! I'll take a shot at it in a bit. Melchoir 06:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I counted 34/55 around the outside and added it to the article. Melchoir 06:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And I've taken the liverty of pasting it onto Sunflower as well. Melchoir 06:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reads good. Thanks. Shyamal 06:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

block

Melchoir: I just got briefly, and obviously accidentally blocked by an admin of username AmiDaniel, who's user page says she has health problems. The block was clearly transient, because here I am. But if one does get blocked accidentally, as in this case, what do you do? According to my on-screen message I was confused, Lord knows why, with a user:polikarpos, who the message said weas blocked indefinitely. In that situation, how would I unblock?--Anthony.bradbury 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you completely sure about what happened? Your block log is clean... Melchoir 20:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. But I saw the message, could not (briefly) edit, and I can read. And how else would I get the Admin's name? I am ok now, sure, but it's worrying. Incidentally, if you say my log is clean, I also got briefly blocked on my second or third day with Wiki by Arwel Parry, and he denied it as well. Is it possible for intentional vandals to clone ISP addresses?--Anthony.bradbury 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, but now that you mention IP addresses... do you surf from dynamic IP? If so, you may be running into the Wikipedia:Autoblock feature. Melchoir 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just a common old home PC bought 2 years ago. I am the only user. My worry is, as I say, given that I am NOT vandalising anything - see my contributions - if I were to get accidentally blocked again, how to do I make contact to get unblocked? I do take your point about my block log, but it did happen. The block message from User:AmiDaniel was addressed to User:Polikarpos, which is not me, and it was telling him that he was blocked indefinitely; that's scary. AmiDaniel does not answer, but her user page says she has health problems.--Anthony.bradbury 21:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And you don't use AOL or anything? Well, AmiDaniel was active earlier just today, so she's not gone, and I'm sure she'll respond to you in time. Melchoir 21:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm on BT Yahoo. AmiDaniel perhaps has gone to bed. Incidentally, user page is rather ambiguous as to whether he/she is male or female.--Anthony.bradbury 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how BT Yahoo works, but it sure sounds like an autoblock to me.

And I am really sorry to nag, but you do not answer the question. If I get accidentally permanently blocked, how do I make contact?--Anthony.bradbury 21:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Contact the admin and be patient? If you're really dying for a speedier response, you could also try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Melchoir 22:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm being paranoid. But I did try while blocked to contact the Admin and got a message to say that I couldn't because I was blocked. That's my point.--Anthony.bradbury 22:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I misunderstood. If you wish to protest a block while still being blocked, you can apply {{unblock}} to your talk page, which you should still be able to edit. Melchoir 00:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article project

I would like to nominate Asian arowana for featured article status some time in the near future. I am writing to ask for your help in improving the article in any possible way in preparation for nomination. Thanks! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 18:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

0.999 Proof

Melchoir: I always thought the "0.9999 infinitum equals one" proof was as simple as this:

8/9 = 0.8888888…

1/9 = 0.1111111…

0.8888888… + 0.1111111… = 0.9999999…

8/9 + 1/9 = 9/9

9/9 = 1

0.9999999… = 1

Separate issue. What happened to LeBofSportif? He's now a dead link.
Another issue. Can you tell me more about yourself and your background. Can you e-mail me this somehow if you don't want to share it in a public forum?
Greg L 06:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the argument is fine as long as one assumes that 1/9 = 0.1111111… and that addition of decimal expansions works. And like the equality "0.9999999… = 1" itself, these are both perfectly true statements and provable in a variety of formalisms. Unfortunately, such proofs are even more obscure than the proofs that 0.9999999… = 1, so some people are unprepared to believe your assumptions.

Looking at Special:Contributions/LeBofSportif, the user seems to still be around, no?

As for me, I'm fine talking about myself as long as it doesn't just give away my identity. (I'm assuming that there aren't any really driven investigators watching my Wikipedia talk page!) I'm a 22-year old American with a B.A. each in math and physics. Theoretically I should be contributing on biological macromolecules, planetary ring dynamics, mathematical billiards, and quantum error correction, but for the most part I've found it more fun to branch out on Wikipedia. Melchoir 19:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I stumbled upon the 0.999...=1 argument and decided if I might ask of your opinion. Although my understanding of mathematics may appear crude to a pure mathematician, it is my understanding that people are generally confused about how one number may be equal another number that appears to be different. Could I be correct in saying that 0.9999... is merely a "representation" of a number, i.e., the way that we lazily write an infinite limit, which is indeed equal to the number one. Thus, when we write 0.999...=1, we are formally saying that this colloquially written limit is equal to one, NOT that one number is equal to a seemingly different number. If formally correct, perhaps this should be explained in that article. Krea 19:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be much better to say that "0.999..." is a representation of a number that happens to be 1, even though technically it is just a string of eight characters. Likewise, "one", "unity", "the integer after zero", and "1" itself are English phrases that represent 1. But if you take away the quote marks you're dealing with live ammo, and these are all identically the same thing, set, and concept.

I'm sure this all has something to do with use-mention distinctions and linguistics, but the mathematics going on is that we don't want to distinguish between 1+1 and 2, between 1.5 and 3/2, between -0 and 0, or between 0.999... and 1. If nothing is equal to anything else, then we can all sit around congratulating ourselves on our powers of distinction, but we can't do any mathematics!. Melchoir 20:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Should somebody not make all this clear in the article rather than leaving it as a sentence or two; saying something like: "0.999... is the representation of a number constructed through an infinite sum that equals one."? Krea 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with that sentence, because 0.999... isn't a representation of 1; 0.999... is the same as 1. What's wrong with the current language: "It should be no surprise that a notation allows a single number to be written in different ways.", with the example? Melchoir 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say 0.999... is a representation of 1, I said that the notation 0.999... is a representation of an infinite summation, the evaluation of which is 1. To avoid confusing less knowledgeable readers, I thought that that fact should be made explicity clear. As it is, only a mathematician who knew this would understand that particular sentence for all that it is: the lay person would overlook it - especially since the discussion before that sentence is, mostly, pointless: What was the significance of mentioning irrationals? Krea 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The article Proof that 0.999... equals 1 does not mention irrationals. Melchoir 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"There also exist numbers that are not quotients of integers, such as the square root of two (1.41421356…) and pi (3.14159265…) with an endless number of digits that do not repeat." Krea 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see that. Yeah, the background rambles a bit, but I don't see how to fix it. Anyway, as for the meaning of the notation "0.999...", the article should (but perhaps doesn't) make clear that it can literally mean many things: the limit of a certain sequence, the sum of a certain series, the unique point in certain nested intervals, a certain equivalence class of rational Cauchy sequences, a certain cut of rationals, etc., and it doesn't matter which of these we take to be the "true" meaning, because they are all equal to the real number 1. Also, it's dangerous ground to start distinguishing between an infinite summation and its "evaluation". As I've been trying to say, in mathematical writing, everything is evaluated by default. Melchoir 00:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not overly bothered about it to be fair (I think I was bored that day), it's just that I thought it could be made more clear that 0.999... is just another way of writing 1, and that the reason for this lies in the idea of a limit. When I first came across this as a kid, the book said that this was a proof that no number lies between 0.999... and unity. I remember being a little confused and not really understanding why 0.999... equaled 1 until I was introduced to the very powerful concept of the limit. So, it's no big deal really... Krea 17:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Caesium v.s. Cesium

From: Greg L 01:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The NIST and other U.S. scientific organizations spell element #55 “cesium”. Someone re-directed Wiki inquiries to the British spelling "Caesium". I would have fixed this if I knew how. Do you know how to do this?

Yes, but if you check out Talk:Caesium, it's a fight that you aren't going to want to join! Melchoir 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I went to Talk and read what was there. I was amazed at the group-think paralysis that can develop in various situations. I added my two cents. Greg L 17:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiders

Hi there: advice, please. An editor user:Sarefo is currently adding very brief articles about, possibly, every spider known to science. Not objectionable, and certainly not vandalism, but really not very useful. From the speed with which they appear, I feel he must be using a bot. It's harmless, but totally clogs the newpage screen. Add notability tags? Do nothing? Mark as copyvio? Or what?--Anthony.bradbury 14:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably the only code I would personally add is

{{arachnid-stub}}
Category:Jumping spiders

where they aren't already there. You certainly aren't alone with your concerns; see User talk:Sarefo. But a stub notice is probably enough. As for copyvios or unregistered bots, unless you have some more direct evidence that a user is engaging in such behavior, I'd be careful about making accusations. Melchoir 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir, I was not intending to make any accusations; just pointing out that it is not possible to type that fast. And my comment about copyvio was with a question mark. I have done nothing to any of the articles, nor have I contacted the user.--Anthony.bradbury 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, I'm just saying. Melchoir 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Algeria

Melchoir: In NP patrolling I have come across an article called "Algerian radio" (the upper/lower cases are as quoted) I has to be a copyvio, but there are so many Google hits on Algeria as to make proving it very tricky. Any advice?--Anthony.bradbury 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been deleted, so I don't know what to say. Melchoir 23:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to say; it's gone.--Anthony.bradbury 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

Melchoir: would you be so good as to look at an article entitled Steventon End? It seems to be uncertain as to whether it's talking about a football team or a cricket team, neither of which are called Steventon. Only one editor is listed, albeit many times; I can't figure if he has been subtly vandalised or gone barking mad!--Anthony.bradbury 11:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

He's now got the name right, but the confusion persists. I have left a message on his talk page.--Anthony.bradbury 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. That page history does look strange; I thought new user accounts weren't allowed to move pages for a few days. I proposed a while ago to allow them to move pages they create immediately, for exactly this purpose of clarifying titles where they know best; maybe someone implemented it! Melchoir 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there: just had my userpage vandalised for the first time: now I really feel that I belong with the good guys!--Anthony.bradbury 18:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Melchoir 18:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings fellow random page patroller!

I have to say they look a heck of a lot better than they did 2 years ago when I started "randopatrolling"... I don't know if that's your experience?

You seem to have come across some blatant OR by User:Rimini in the past. I've done a little fact-checking and it seems your suspicions are confirmed, so it's being AFD'd. The user also made one change to the Risk article, deleting a sensible section and replacing it with a link to that OR nonsense. Quite disturbingly, it's been there for months, at least until I reverted. I guess unless an expert checks out the diffs, these edits (which aren't obvious vandalism) can slip through the net.

On the other hand, since our task is just to check whether an entire page need categorizing, stubbing, cleanup or indeed outright deletion, we've got it pretty easy. TheGrappler 20:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nowadays I tend to patrol Newpages more, since it's easier to find the needy articles. That's probably how I found Copernicus factor; I like to go back a couple days in the Newpages queue to sift through articles that other patrollers missed. When I do check Random, though, it does seem to be a bit better. Certainly the census-designated places are showing up much less often! You're also right about having it easy. I once tried picking through the POV backlog instead, and it's damn hard to fix some of those. Melchoir 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What I try to do is include a couple of helpful external links (if I can find any!) on a substandard or dodgy-looking page so that other editors will find it easier to add to the article, if it takes their interest. But I have to say, I don't fancy taking on the "references needed" backlog either! TheGrappler 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

Melchoir, could you do me a favour? I was experimenting with {{test4}} and with WP:AIV, and I think I might have accidentally accused myself of vandalism. Could you please check in a day or two and make sure that i haven't been blocked?--Anthony.bradbury 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh... okay. Melchoir 02:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm paranoid (but am I paranoid enough?), but I have been briefly blocked on two occasions, without committing even the tiniest infringement. Hence my (unjustified) concern.--Anthony.bradbury 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's just that I didn't see where on AIV you were in trouble. And even if you were accused, the admins at AIV are generally pretty responsible on checking out claims and giving people the benefit of the doubt. I've only had to go there a couple of times -- I don't know if you've had the opportunity yet -- but in my experience it works well. Melchoir 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Campa Cola

Mate I saw you removed the categorisation (Category:Soft Drinks) from the article. I wonder why that was because I feel that categorisation should be there. Hope to hear from you soon. Unitedroad 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed Campa Cola from Category:Soft drinks because the article is already in the subcategory Category:Cola due to carrying the {{colas}} template. That's all. Melchoir 08:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And Bubba Cola

this link:

• Bubba Cola Official Home Page ("Official" in name only)

I know a million possible reasons for deleting it, but I resisted doing so in previous revisions of Bubba Cola. Would you mind telling me the thought process that lead to your decision to delete? Just for my own education. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you have me confused with User:C&R, who made this edit removing the link. Melchoir 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Kinkade

Hey, this is HaricotVert. I noticed you reverted mine and some other individual's additions to the "Cristicisms (artistic)" stub in the Thomas Kinkade article with the concern that it was hearsay. I understand the concern and I am aware of Wikipedia's policies regarding sources and POV, but those were both legitimate criticisms. Under the definition of criticism they both should not be deleted, since they were, indeed, criticisms. A criticism does not require sources or verification - a criticism is inherently an opinion, not fact. This is equally true for those that praise Kinkade - those that enjoy his work may say how quaint or moving or "luminescent" his work is, but that does not stop it from being an opinion as well.

Since the section is entitled "criticism" (and was a stub to boot) it seems natural that people would post critical comments there, including their own. Perhaps it would have been easier to just flag it with "Citation needed" or flag the section with a "this article does not cite its sources" tag instead of outright deleting it? Maybe a "Praise of Kinkade" section is needed to balance out the POV? I guess I'm just wondering what provoked you to delete things that clearly *were* criticisms by definition as "hearsay," as if we need to have a doctorate or be widely published in order to critique the work of artists. Thanks, hope to discuss this with you further. Wed Jul 19 18:24:50 UTC 2006

The problem with the claims I removed in this edit was that they aren't just criticisms of Kinkade's work; they are assertions about what "critics" have said about Kinkade's work. On the face of it, Wikipedia's NPOV policy does require us to write in this way: to avoid advancing an opinion, and to instead neutrally describe the opinions of others. But once you make a factual statement about what other people think, you need evidence. Statements like "Some people have noticed...", "Art critics also point out...", "Critics argue that...", and "frequently compared to..." demand verification if the reader is to believe that they aren't just some Wikipedia editor's personal opinion. Although you're familiar with policy, perhaps you haven't read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words yet?

Yes, perhaps it was asking for trouble to have a Criticism section with a stub tag. But per WP:V, we should be strict when dealing with unsourced statements concerning living people. I don't doubt that some published art critics have said everything I removed. If you can track any of them down, it will be easy enough to restore the verified bits. In the meanwhile, I want to play it safe. (By the way, if you do find any praise of Kinkade, I don't see why it can't go into the Criticism section as well.) Okay? Melchoir 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Definitely cleared things up. One other comment though: to what extent does something become "common knowledge" or "generally acceptable," i.e. a reader who actually follows up on a specific point can see for themselves that there is truth to the point regardless of whether or not a source makes mention of it? I ask because the other user that edited the article made a mention of Kinkade borderline plagiarising another artist's work due to uncanny similarity. Perhaps the word "plagiarism" was entirely misused in that it was a coincidence and the two works are just similar, but my question is in regards to whether or not that similarity requires a citation of some kind. Would it be acceptable to include a link to an image of both works and let the reader decide for themselves? An additional example of this was my comparison to Norman Rockwell (minus the weasel wording) - when I said that many criticisms of Rockwell are similar to those of Kinkade (notably as "kitsch" and the painting/illustrating of images that often hold little underlying meaning), that was a true statement, as the user could click on the link going to the criticisms of Rockwell and note that they are, indeed, similar. Is there any rule or standard that dictates when verification is no longer needed as long as the resources for the reader to make the judgment themselves are provided?--Haricotvert 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's Wikipedia:Common knowledge. To hit on some specifics, I don't see what's wrong with claiming that two images are "similar" with evidence; it's just that "plagiarism" is an awfully strong charge to be making without a source. As for comparing to criticisms of Rockwell, keep in mind that Rockwell's article is also unverified, and Wikipedia doesn't consider its own unverified material to be a reliable source. It would be better to cite published criticism of the two artists. Melchoir 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Medal of Honor FAR

Hi. I've now responded to each of your inputs for this. Please review them and let me know status. Thanks for making them specific and detailed. I totally agree the article had deteriorated and I feel it's in much better shape now. Rlevse 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the work! I've been away for a bit, but I'll have a look now. Melchoir 22:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

my edit 10:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC) at the bottom of the FAR page, it's getting hard to follow all the chat in area with the strikeouts. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 10:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ITALY

why are there people like you or pick holes at everything? Do you think I am so damn stupid that I don't know these articles exist in other languages?. Unlike other people I am bothering to start articles on all the Italian communes first. Then secondly I will systematically go through and add info boxes in detail. Thirdly I will translate from other wikipedias, fourthly I will eventually research the articles further but clearly this will take time. So please don't whine! I rhink I will do a very valuable job over the long term. NOBODY ELSE IS BOTHERING TO EVEN START THEM SO PLEASE DON'T DISCOURAGE ME. James Janderson 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

hi mate. look I admit I read the criticisms all on my page as being from you and I misinterpreted the tone of the suggestion. It just annoys me that I am bothering to help wikipedia and all I seem to get is criticism. But trust me I will start all the Italy communes and then go through with a wealth of info translated and all. Ok mate. Apologies for flying off the handle its just people seem to treat me as stupid. James Janderson 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you help me out on them? I could do with a helping hand. It would be much better to work with somebody.-that way you'll see I am actually a decent bloke when you don'y get on the wrong side of me.

James Janderson 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for understanding. And I apologize if I patronized you, but it's hard to tell how experienced or thoughtful a stranger on the internet might be, and everyone occasionally needs to be reminded of some of the tools at their disposal. If you're having trouble with other users too, you might want to try a couple of preventative measures:

• You could describe any major projects you're working on at your user page, including bits you plan to get around to but haven't yet. I read your user page before contacting you, and others should as well.
• If you use edit summaries such as "Initial stub, interwiki and details to follow", Newpage patrollers like myself will be aware that you intend to revisit your articles. (Not everyone does!)

Good luck with the rest! Melchoir 09:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for helping you out... ordinarily I'm happy to perform repetitive tasks, but I have a bit of a programmer's mindset, and I try not to do things manually if they can be automated. You might have noticed that a lot of the other language's articles on Italian towns were started by bots, as were the English articles on American and Indian towns. Have you considered running a bot for Italy? Melchoir 09:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I'm glad we have cleared the air and thankyou for your comments. I think it is valuable advice to use an initial stub summary its just it does take more time and I won't be able to plough through the articles so quickly. There are so many thousands of places that should not only exist on wikipedia but should have all the info available on them. Many places in parts of the world are so poorly covered by an Anglo-Centre English wikipedia and they should be covered. James Janderson 09:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

True. One tool I've found helpful for repeating the same edit summary many times is to use Safari on a Mac and turn on saving form information. Then all you have to do is type in the first letter of your message into the edit summary box and it'll fill in the rest. I don't know how many other browser setups this works on. Melchoir 09:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Able Archer 83 copy edit!

Hey, thanks alot for the copyedit of the article. I'm really honored to be part of such a piece of work. where did you learn to edit so well, anyways? lots of practice? Thx again Natebjones

Part of the work? You're too modest; you wrote a Featured Article in one go almost singlehandedly, so thanks to you!

Copyediting isn't that hard, considering that I didn't have too look up any references or really learn the material. I don't know when I discovered that it could be fun. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with my education or career.

Anyway, I thought you had disappeared. Good to see you back... I don't suppose there are any more FAs up your sleeve? Melchoir 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Citrus

Hello. I'm the guy that originally tried to classify the Key Lime as a pure species in the Citrus article. Originally I let it go and left it as is, but I was wondering if you could contact any botanists or hard-core plant enthusiasts and get a second opinion. If you can't I understand but I'm not sure that the article should remain as is in that respect. I'm also not sure if I should change the article. Your opinion would be nice too. P.S. I'm really bad at looking for references. - 13:00, 29 July 2006

Well, my understanding of the classification of Citrus is that nothing is certain, but for scientists who recognize a small number of species, Key Lime isn't one of them. I got this from:

• Giovanni Dugo and Angelo Di Giacomo, eds., ed. (2002). Citrus. London: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-415-28491-0. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)

That and some other monograph on the genus whose details I can't remember. As for asking experts, why don't you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants? I'm sure you'll get a more enlightened response there! Melchoir 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Oh hey!

Hi there! I was just wondering, would you like to guess what I stuck up my butt today?  : ) 71.101.128.27 01:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the opportunity, but I am afraid I must let it pass by. Melchoir 01:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, that's fine! Although if you want a hint, just let me know. 71.101.128.27 01:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have my people call your people. Melchoir 01:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good! Keep in touch. 71.101.128.27 01:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Users Dbaba/DBaba

Wondering if you could help me out with something...DBaba 06:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've got to go, but I'll be back within half a day or so. Meanwhile, please refresh my memory: what's the problem? Melchoir 06:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just the mystery of you creating a userpage for Dbaba, then being surprised to be asked about it by DBaba. Do I know you?DBaba 07:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. User:Dbaba apparently created an encyclopedia article, David babayan, which said "David, the Babayan, is a high school student noted...". I caught this on Special:Newpages and copy-pasted the material to its current home. At some point, either I or another patroller tagged the original article for speedy deletion, and it was deleted, erasing any evidence that User:Dbaba ever edited Wikipedia. A better course of action would have been to userfy the original page by moving it, but there might have been technical difficulties, or maybe I didn't know better. Melchoir 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up about changing redirects to direct links! I'll change back the mistakes. Bobo12345 23:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, much obliged! Melchoir 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 4 August, 2006, a fact from the article Pacific ocean perch, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.