User talk:Melchoir/Archive6

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.

Jassi26

Melchoir; this user has a list of contributions, and all of the appear to be vandalism. They include four changes to my userpage and one to 0.999999..., all today. He has a number of warnings, and I think he merits a permanent block as a vandal-only account. What do you think? in case of indecision, read his edits on my userpage.--Anthony.bradbury 18:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like User:Betacommand took care of it. Melchoir 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I see no evidence of it.--Anthony.bradbury 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that would be [1]. Melchoir 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. There was no message on his talk/user pages and I looked no further.--Anthony.bradbury 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just put one on. Melchoir 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For spending almost an entire 24 hour stretch on Wikipedia defending 0.999... during its reign as "Today's Featured Article". Great job! —Mets501 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woo! Melchoir 01:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirra Greece

Could you please take a look at the page Kirra Greece that I've created? And could you please edit it? Thank you! Neptunekh 06:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

198.54.202.254

Hi Melchoir. Just a quick note: I have every reason to believe that said anon is actually a very old "friend" of ours (and his trolling goes way before that link). I suggest we do not feed him (I've made that mistake recently; I will not repeat it). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hoped that guy had left! I guess we should be more careful about identifying anon posts, and I'll certainly watch out for that one. Melchoir 18:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Lord Dracula rises but once every century, and my role is over." (Richter Belmont, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night)

Did a century pass already? Seems we have a role once again... -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Mewlchoir, I am going to be away for a week or so, and my userpage, possibly because of my extensive NP patrolling, attracts vandals like a magnet does iron filings. 24 vandal attacks to date. could you please make an occasional check, or put it on your watchlist, and take whatever action seems appropriate? I would be grateful.--Anthony.bradbury 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I check a long watchlist often enough anyway. Melchoir 19:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 20:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; I am back in the land of the living, and feel almost insulted that in my absence no-one vandalised my pages! Am I no longer of high enough profile?--Anthony.bradbury 09:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want a serious answer, I expect that vandals have too short an attention span to hit someone they haven't interacted with a few minutes previously. I can certainly imagine members of some non-notable web forum drumming up long-term attacks against a Wikipedian who helped delete an article on them, or something like that... but I for one hope it never happens to me! Melchoir 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Thanks for the welcome. Sorry if this is the wrong page but it seemed the right place to put this. Thanks for your welcome, Melchoir, much appreciated. I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia (been using for months but never had the urge to edit anything until recently) but I try to do my best if I feel the urge. I'm a bit of a grammar stickler so you can be sure I'll clear up misused apostrophes and the like if I see them. ;) CentralJake 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! Any enemy of the stray apostrophe is a friend of mine. And I hope there are more photos and articles to come, too! Melchoir 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too- the help pages will be useful. I have a couple of questions about images I've uploaded.... I'll try submitting them to the help desk. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to making some contributions to the project. Johnhfst 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. If you have any questions that don't get answered, just ring me up and I'll try to find another forum. Good luck, Melchoir 01:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, well, I don't know whether this is the right place either: but thanks for welcoming me too. It's really stimulating. Thank you. Tamira C. 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome too, and thanks for your own feedback! Melchoir 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know introduction for Dallas W. Smythe

Hello Melchoir, this is Jennifer Parisi, I just recently posted the Dallas Smythe website, and I thought of an introductory blurb for the page:

- that Dallas Smythe, who was one of the first people to research the political economy of communications, earned an FBI file for his volunteerism with the American League for Peace & Democracy? (Jennifer parisi 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Great, I'll shorten it a bit and suggest it. Melchoir 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dallas Walker Smythe, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 00:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that goes to someone else... Melchoir 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.91.108.157 - showing repentance

Hello! May I ask exactly where 69.91.108.157 showed "repentance"? Is it because they are vandalizing, then changing it back? That could mean that they are getting a screen capture, then reverting the article before anyone "notices". I'm seriously asking; mainly to better understand how things work around here. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 00:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I hadn't thought of that possibility. At the very least, the self-revert suggests that there won't be more vandalism coming from that IP, so blocking it doesn't seem necessary. Of course, if it vandalizes again, I'll be proven wrong, and I'll be happy to do the block myself.

As for how things work, I'm a pretty new admin, and I've only responded to AIV a couple of times before. I guess it's kind of pot luck. Perhaps as I gain cynicism I'll become quicker with the trigger... Melchoir 00:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I wasn't trying to plant the seeds of cynicism. The "screen capture" ploy is one I learned as an admin for a text-based online game: troublemaker does something horrible, gets a screen capture, then claims that "they went to the bathroom only to find that someone else was at their keyboard". They get forgiven, and told to be more careful (the game's policy, not mine, and this was almost ten years ago), but they still have the screen capture to brag about to their friends. Imagine the applications such a ruse would have on Wikipedia. Yikes.

Anyway. You confirmed what I thought was the process; you have to hope that self-reversion of vandalism is a sign that they are at least wary, and possibly even reluctant to vandalize in the future, and react if they vandalize again. Thanks for the help! -- weirdoactor ^t^|^c -- 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I'm sorry, I do watch your page and would have reverted your userpage, but I have been 20 hours off-line.--Anthony.bradbury 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the thought anyway! Melchoir 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Galilean world line?

I second the motion that Image:Lorentz transform of world line.gif is awesome. Could you possibly make a Galilean analogue for comparison? I could probably do it myself, but I'm lazy! Melchoir 21:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much time to do it before, but here it is... Image:Galilean transform of world line.gif Κσυπ Cyp 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Brilliant! I don't know if we can get a second FP, but I'll link the two. Melchoir 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thank you for reverting my userpage. That vandal wrote a seriously mindless article which I {{speedy}} tagged, and posted a warning on his talk page.--Anthony.bradbury 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and incidentally, I felt that his insult showed a singular lack of either originality or venom. If he had trawled back through the page's history he would have discovered much more striking invective!--Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, well, they're not all going to be poets! Melchoir 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated congratulations!

for becoming an admin. This goes to show me I should probably watch RfA to prevent these things from flying right past me. For what it's worth, you would have had my vote. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The vote was already kind of excessive, but a bit of belated support never hurts! Melchoir 20:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerile

Isn't this either {{speedy}} or {{transwiki}}?--Anthony.bradbury 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think Wiktionary has it covered. As for speedying it, I'm not sure which criterion would apply. Melchoir 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wiktionary had it covered, and as the definition is in fact wrong, {{db-nonsense}} would cover it.--Anthony.bradbury 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably. Oh well, it's going to go away anyway. Melchoir 01:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

I have been thinking, since we last talked. I have decided to put you in the hot seat as regards my going for admin. I will not self-nominate and I will not seek nomination from other admins/editors whom I know. When YOU feel I am ready, I will accept your nomination. If you never feel it appropriate, so be it. I am sorry if you feel this is unfair, but I have related to you much more than with any other wikipedians, although Gwernol, Shimgray and DocEss have been helpful.--Anthony.bradbury 00:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's unfair. I'll have to think about this one, of course... Melchoir 01:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked the page WP:WP. Just doing my homework just in case. I really LOVE WP:BEANS!--Anthony.bradbury 22:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, since I last commented I have succeeded, I think, albeit accidentally, in annoying no less than three admins.--Anthony.bradbury 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I don't know what to think about that guy on Super Bowl. I started out thinking maybe he had a reason for deleting that text that he just wasn't sharing; now it seems more likely that he's just amusing himself. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the final edit sealed the case for me. Not that a 7RR or whatever it was is anything to sneeze at either! Melchoir 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the text that he's been deleting -- from multiple IPs, all apparently at NYU, for the past two weeks, isn't all that critical. But by refusing to offer any rationale for deleting it, he turns what could have been a content dispute into simple vandalism. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 11 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grandi's series , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Melchoir, I have done a small naughty. I prodded an article by User:Satyasingaraju, and went to put a message on his talk page, but carelessly put it on his userpage instead. I then could not move it to his talk page because another editor had got there first. Satyasingaraju had no other content on his talk page, so I blanjked it pro.tem. I know that this is wrong, but I thought it best to leave it blank while seeking help. Help!--Anthony.bradbury 12:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. Melchoir 04:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi; I have discovered WP:ADOPT, which seems like a great idea. I have, personally, adopted someone who I think, from the page history, was the first user to ask to be adopted. History in a small way, yes. In the increasingly unlikely event of their asking a question which I cannot answer (I think I know most of it now), I trust I can come to you?--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not quite the first, but nearly.--Anthony.bradbury 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't see why not! Melchoir 04:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Why are editors who are not my adoptees comimg to me for advice?--Anthony.bradbury 01:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... I have no idea! Perhaps just because you show up in Category:Wikipedians who have adopted in Adopt-a-user? Melchoir 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's not a problem, and so far I have consistently been able to sort them out. I was just idly speculating, late at night!--Anthony.bradbury 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 16 November, 2006, a fact from the article Pycnanthemum incanum, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not me... Melchoir 02:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Vandalism

I can't find the proper warning template for this case (and not sure I should since I'm no admin) but a user just made some very damaging remarks on another user's account here: [2]. -WarthogDemon 00:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I blocked the account indefinitely; there's probably an even stronger template that I could have used. Let's see... Melchoir 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...there we go. Melchoir 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working that out. :) -WarthogDemon 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Barnstar For You

		The Original Barnstar
		To User:Melchoir for his amazing work on the article Grandi's series. Keep it up and keep rockin' --N R S \| ^T/_M\^B 05:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I do intend to keep working on that article; I've recently hunted down Panza's book, but I don't read Italian, so it'll be slow going to say the least! Melchoir 22:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article on Grandi's series. It's very colorful, and might actually stimulate some reader's interest in dry-as-dust mathematics! DavidCBryant 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, that's great to hear! Melchoir 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi; I am disturbed that only 57 new editors have been adopted by only 34 experienced users. Given the appalling mistakes which quite sincere but new users (including me at one time) make, is there any way you know of that this scheme can be given a higher profile? --Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... the first few things that come to mind are Wikipedia:Village pump (news), Wikipedia:Esperanza, and Wikipedia:Community Portal. The project should probably have an incoming link from Wikipedia:New contributors' help page too. I must admit that I have very little experience in those areas... Melchoir 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Melchoir, I think that I am as ready as I will ever be. Looking at my talk- and contribution- pages, what do you think now. Honestly, please. Sorry to take up your time.--Anthony.bradbury 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think you're ready, it's just that I'm reluctant at judging people in general. Still, you're waited long enough! I'll do some research tonight and slap together a nom. I daresay you won't be disappointed! Melchoir 01:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way it goes, thank you for your trust and your kind comments in the RfA. I have to work now - just looked in quickly - but will process it this evening (UK). Yes, you are right, I do know how to do it :-)--Anthony.bradbury 12:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am posted. Whichever way it goes, thank you for your confidence.--Anthony.bradbury 18:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I wan't posted because right after saving my submission and telling you it was in I suffered a power blackout. But now it is definitely in!--Anthony.bradbury 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I go to bed while the votes are coming in?--Anthony.bradbury 00:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melchoir, it's not going as well as I would have liked. Help.--Anthony.bradbury 02:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I haven't been at Wikipedia since it opened... I'm reading it now. Melchoir 08:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seem to have been some unfortunate misunderstandings, to be sure. There's still support votes rolling in; we may get a better idea of where the discussion/vote is heading after another day or so. I think probably the best thing for you to do is relax! For my part, I'll leave a longer note next to my support. Melchoir 09:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line - I'll go for it again in three months time.--Anthony.bradbury 11:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was late, and I was tired, and when he said I had only 107 edits I simply did not register the preceding word "namespace". It was after 2 am and I should have just gone to bed. But I was eager. My fault.--Anthony.bradbury 11:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done it, so do not worry; am I right in believing that even drawing the attention of editors with whom I have interacted favourably, and who might well support, to the Rfa page is a heinous crime?--Anthony.bradbury 23:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

26.8.5 as of 1 am UK time today. It's not going to work, is it? OK, I can come back later. Do YOU think that contribution in wiki talk and in wiki namespace is important? And if so, why didn't you tell me to do it? As you know, my interest is really just in maintaining the integrity of the main space articles. Sadly, it appears that I am expected to participate in namespace, Wiki talk, projects, and everything else. And I can't do that. Oh, well.--Anthony.bradbury 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what counts as vote-stacking or not, but you're probably right to play it safe. The voting does seem to have taken a turn for the worse, but there are lots of editors who indicate that they'll support you in the future.

Personally, I don't think contributions to the other namespaces are quite so important. On the contrary, I've seen lots of RfAs where voters were worried that the nominee hadn't spent enough time in regular article space! So theoretically it ought to be a plus that your focus is on articles. I thought your participation in AfDs might be enough for the Wikipedia namespace, but I guess it isn't for some people.

If you want to actively prepare for a second RfA in a month or two, I could help you pick up a bit more experience in the other namespaces. I don't think it would be too much work... what do you think? Melchoir 01:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful. Obviously, I could have done more in AfD and in Wiki talk and in other areas of WP:NAMESPACE. I was simply working, for what I thought was the benefit of wikipedia, elsewhere. I know about AfD, and have done a lot there in the last few days. Where else should I be? I would like to go for it again in a month or two, and guidance would be helpful. (PS I thought that I answered this message from you already, but I can find no record thereof. If you get two answers, pick the best one).--Anthony.bradbury 18:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going to bed now (UK late). I will hopefully pick up your comment(s)tomorrow.--Anthony.bradbury 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! If you want experience in Wikipedia:, try putting Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on your watchlist. With any luck, you might find a couple of discussions where you have something to say. Those pages also occasionally draw interest to Wikipedia talk: pages elsewhere. If you're feeling bold, you might also want to try out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Another area in Wikipedia: space is the Refdesk. Given your expertise, you may want to try putting Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science on your list. These pages don't contain policy discussion, so I don't know how many points you'll score with voters there, but they're probably better than nothing.

Of course, there's always AfD for pumping up your Wikipedia: numbers. Again, it couldn't hurt.

And that's essentially the end of my own experience. I'm sure there are lots of other ways to dabble in other namespaces. You might try helping maintain Portals such as Portal:Military of ancient Rome, Portal:War, Portal:England, Portal:Biology, and Portal:Aviation; or related Wikiprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military aviation task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. If you Watch an Wikiproject, you'll see the discussions on its talk page, which often bear directly on article improvement. For that matter, Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Scientific peer review, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates are great places to comment directly on articles. I've actually participated in those a couple of times, just not regularly. Melchoir 22:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a fair selection. I knew about quite a lot of those, though by no means all; I just have not felt the urge to enter them. But of course, I can. And will. Am already bumping up my AfD and wiki-talk figures. Thank you. When whatever tool is on line at the time gives me an adequate score, I'll try again. Incidentally, I see that one aspirant just got voted down for not having enough main space edits. You can't please all the people all of the time, can you? I would like now to thank you for all the time and trouble you have taken. Ultimately, I will not let you down.--Anthony.bradbury 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Méchant

Hi Melchoir,

I saw your speedy deletion request, and posted something on my talk page to explain why I posted Méchant on Wikipedia I also wanted to stop by and ask for your help. I was a member of a band that's listed at Wikipedia, but instead of posting a page about myself (which seemed kind of silly), I wanted to post a page about my band Méchant instead. All the details are in my talk page, if you wouldn't mind taking a look.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, and I wanted to ask if you could help me out. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks a lot-

Regina Reginazernay 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll give the whole thing another look, maybe in a couple of days; I'm pretty busy right now! Melchoir 09:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Editors

Hi; is there some new guideline in the welcome page or elsewhere that I have failed to come across? You must have noticed, and I hope you can explain ,that there are recently a vast number of edits being posted - some sensible, some not - where the edit summary appears approximately to equate to the length of the article. Mmmm?--Anthony.bradbury 21:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just me butting in, but apparently there's a new system of Automatic edit summaries. Makes spotting blatant vandalism that much easier. Confusing Manifestation 12:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! Yeah, I wouldn't have known what was going on either if it hadn't turned up on the admin noticeboard. Melchoir 00:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi; now 33;16;11. Could you go and get me anothe 40 support votes, please? (just kidding)--Anthony.bradbury 18:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, accepting as we both do that this application has gone down the toilet, I would like to state that I feel that the last few oppose comments, which are pile-ons, fall a long way short of being reasonable. One complains about inexperienced admins blocking experienced users; now come on! How can that be a reason for opposition?--Anthony.bradbury 13:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one's pretty confusing to me too. I guess it ties into a general lack of trust in what are perceived to be inexperienced users? If you feel that the RfA is no longer generating useful commentary, you do have the option of withdrawing it early, per Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#Closure. Melchoir 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection of Great Fire of London

I saw that you move-protected today's featured article. You might want to comment here or in another appropriate location. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 03:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Melchoir 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry Annoucement?

Can and Should IPs be checked up on for sockpuppetry. If so I've come across a case of this. -WarthogDemon 05:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They sure can, but only by certain very special users, and not very often. There's a lot of information at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets. If you want help with a case, you may want to try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets first. But Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is probably the page you're originally looking for. Good luck! Melchoir 05:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and the links. I think this case has been taken care of though; the IP in question was just blocked by the same admin who blocked the first. Thanks again. :) -WarthogDemon 05:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works too! Melchoir 06:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Hi; I shall be off-line until the middle of next week. Nothing to do with the RfA; I have computer problem. (This message is via my work PC) Back soon.--Anthony.bradbury 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good luck with that! I've still got your page on Watch. Melchoir 18:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Back on line. Looks like my pages remained undisturbed. What am I doing wrong?--Anthony.bradbury 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could always request a bot to automatically vandalize your userpage, although somehow I think it would be denied! Melchoir 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll alert

41.243.26.131 (talk • contribs), diff. Need I say more? A block would probably be in order. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! That page is still on my watchlist, although I generally don't bother to read what gets posted. The IP sure looks like a troll, but I don't think I have the authority to block it just for that. Melchoir 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a troll, it's the troll (you know, the one whose last incarnation was 198.54.202.254 (talk • contribs)). Jitse once mentioned his willingness to block him, I think this should be possible. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know. I've been an admin for over a month, and I've blocked plenty of users, but they've all been by the book so far. I don't see in the policies where we can block trolls for trolling. It doesn't help that it's an extremely intermittent troll using a variety of IPs with no apparent long-term pattern.

If you think I'm being too conservative, you could always try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and see who turns up. Frankly I doubt if it's worth your time to battle this one, though. As long as they stay away from the article, it's easier to ignore the trolls, take it from me! Melchoir 23:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe ignoring trolls is much, much harder than blocking them. And when someone is trolling an article for more than a year, it's time to say "enough is enough". -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's hard to commit to ignoring a troll, already on a personal level, and much more at the community level. As you can see from my own involvement, I'm painfully aware of the difficulty. I meant that it's easier to ignore the trolls in the sense that it takes less effort than the alternatives. Debate is impossible, and a game of IP tag just isn't worth it. Melchoir 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Sandbox

Thanks for moving my sandbox! Looks like I was too quick in typing out the URL. Again, thanks! Eclectek ^C ^T 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Melchoir 16:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Methanol reformer

Melchoir, I finished the translation, so with your additions it seems mostly complete. I guess that the internal links to other related subjects still need to be added, but I don't know how to do that yet. I'll try to take a look at it later. Jar1087 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)jar1087[reply]

Great! I can help add links, but perhaps not right now. If you need technical assistance, the links I left on your talk page should be useful, particularly Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Melchoir 10:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeybeat

Melchoir, this nonsense page appears to be protected; at least, it claims to be and it will not let me edit it. Why is it not deleted? It is clearly {{nonsense}}.--Anthony.bradbury 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried logging out, and I could still edit it. I also checked its log, and it was never protected. Strange... Anyway, I've deleted it for being nonsense and warned its author.

Speaking of logs, I see that your personal scripting file doesn't have the tools that I've chosen for mine. In particular, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Logs link gives me a "Logs" link right under "Special pages" in the toolbox on the left side of my screen. You might want to give that one to yourself; it's useful for admin work whether you're an admin or not! Melchoir 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I do still feel that I can help the project as an admin and will go for it when the time seems right. I am spending a lot of time in {{AfD}} to boost my wiki score, but it really is not what I want to do, and I feel I am much better employed in writing in mainspace or in WP:SPEEDY. But I guess you have to go with the flow. I am also putting comments into wiki-talk here and there.--Anthony.bradbury 23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#WP:ADOPT and respond to the comments made there; village pump discussions can stagnate pretty easily without feedback. Cheers, Melchoir 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, trying to help User:Lethaniol get it together.

Melchoir, we all have our blind spots, or most of us do, and mine is archiving. I have downloaded, printed and studied the instructions, and somehow I just do not seem able to do it. I tried butting in the Werdnabot/Archiver instruction, but that does not seem to work either, and User:Werdna appears to be on wikibreak. Could you please, please, just for me look at my talk page and tell me what idiotic oversight I have made? And put it right?--Anthony.bradbury 21:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about the Werdna thing. I'd just cut and paste whatever you want to archive yourself. You've already set up User talk:Anthony.bradbury/Archive2, I see. I recommend giving up on the bot, removing the auto request, and manually copying over the old messages to that page. Melchoir 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorted.--Anthony.bradbury 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was idiotic on this, though I am grateful that you were watching. If I highlight and cut, the whole page highlights, including archive 1. Will that not lead to a totally circular linkage? It may well be wrong, but the way I was doing it seems to work, albeit slowly. A quicker way is welcome, but as far as I can see if I click on "edit this page" I can select all or nothing, but nothing in between. I know it's me.--Anthony.bradbury 23:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a way to select only a middle part of a large block of text, a way that many computer users probably never need to know. If you click inside the text to place a cursor and then, while holding down shift, click somewhere else in the text, the computer will highlight the section of text in the middle. The important thing is that this works even if you do something else between the two clicks, like dragging the scrol bar to find where you want to click next. So you can (in the future, I guess) go to your main page, click just above the first message to archive but below any junk you don't want, then scroll down to find the last message to archive, and shift-click just below it. Melchoir 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Thank you. Really sorted now. The shift-click manoevre is one with which I was wholly unfamiliar. I guess that the editors who wrote the Archiving instruction page thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to mention it.--Anthony.bradbury 12:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding this gem of information to the WP:ARCHIVE page. There must be someone on the Planet apart from me who didn't know it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Glad to hear I helped! Melchoir 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Sorry, I was just slightly slower than you in seeing that one.--Anthony.bradbury 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no prob! It's actually easier for me to revert vandalism with my trusty rollback button. Melchoir 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unruly editor

Melchoir, I would be grateful if you would cast an eye on the top item in my current talk page, part of which is from you and part of which is not. I know that deletion of any kind is not usually allowed, but as this user has posted this threat, obviously with no clue as to how wikipedia works, following on from your comment, I intend to delete his bit. But I wanted someone to see it first. I do not think that my erasing it will substantially harm the project!--Anthony.bradbury 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it were my talk page, I'd move the new stuff to the bottom, put an {{unsigned2}} tag on it, give it a quick, distant reponse, and then ignore it. If you prefer to delete it, I don't think anyone important will mind, but there's always the chance that its writer will become frustrated and more destructive. Melchoir 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But as he already has some warnings, that might actually sort it to at least my satisfaction.--Anthony.bradbury 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is really determined, isn't he? I note that he's now blocked 24 hours. And you know, my initial contact with him was, I thought, quite helpful; or at least, helpfully intended.--Anthony.bradbury 12:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if I'd seen the last edit, I would have blocked him indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account. There's not much you can do for those when they reveal their true colors. Melchoir 17:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll probably blame me for his block {am I paranoid? and am I paranoid enough?) whereupon I will leave it to you to do your stuff.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

If I do say five new articles each week, comment on 25 AfDs, comment on 5 RfDs, make random comments in various policy pages and {{speedy}} perhaps 30 or 40, do you think that will keep all the judges happy? This is what I am doing.--Anthony.bradbury 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally Birger Dahlerus is the first article I have done with multiple footnotes. I think that I am probably now approaching the point which I should have been at before my first RfA. But what do I know?--Anthony.bradbury 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds good, yes. Of course, my judgement has been shown to be somewhat suspect. You may want to try asking one of the Oppose voters what they think? In any case, you should still wait a couple more months before re-applying. Otherwise people will oppose you becuase you seem "too eager", I kid you not! So, by then, at this rate, you should look very good. Melchoir 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I knew that. I thought probably early February. I am happy with your judgement - as you must realise, I was subjected to a pile-on after a stupid late-at-night answer to a question that I should have left until the next day. But it's a learning experience. Thank you for the added categories to Birger Dahlerus, which I felt was a most extraordinary gap in our database. I could not have added the Hebrew category.--Anthony.bradbury 17:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, essentially I just copied the Hebrew link out of the German page. And the German page I found on Google. Melchoir 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monster

Hi there; I don't think that User:Monster tard the 3rd likes you very much. Hea has just vandalised your userpage six times - reverted by bot - without so much as a warning, never mind a block. None of my business really, but I--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC) will warn him now.[reply]

Actually, I already indefblocked it as a vandalism-only account; he must have blanked his talk page. Melchoir 05:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Thank you; I have stuck a nomination in. Do you think my fragile ego could survive rejection?--Anthony.bradbury 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, DYKs are rarely rejected if they meet the basic criteria. Melchoir 18:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was only kidding.--Anthony.bradbury 18:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...oh. It's not easy on the Internet. Melchoir 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Perhaps I should use smilies:-)--Anthony.bradbury 18:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that smilies do help, but it would be a little hypocritical of me to encourage other people to use them when I have sworn never to use them myself! I don't know if I can say why; there's just something about them. Melchoir 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use them much. But it is sometimes hard, as you know, to convey irony or sarcasm in the otherwise absence of intonation.--Anthony.bradbury 19:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Culverin

Melchoir, I tend to come to you just because I always have; but I do know other admins, and if I am taking too much of your time please tell me.

I draw your attention to the above-linked page. Please look at it, and decide if it is written in the true spirit of wikipedia? I have just entered my comment, which may or may not survive.--Anthony.bradbury 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't think those fake-new-message blocks are such a big deal. Personally I find them extremely annoying, but I wouldn't actually confront a user over such a one. Perhaps you should revise your message to make it a little friendlier? Melchoir 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late to revise message; the conversation has moved on. I have placed what I hope will be seen as a conciliatory follow-up, though I am not wholly convinced that my initial reaction (which was considered, not knee-jerk) was wrong. Think of the effect on a newby following a link.--Anthony.bradbury 15:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but there are other potentially harmful things that get allowed in userspace on the principle that the owner gets some leeway in it. Some controversial and/or unencyclopedic userboxes come to mind. Melchoir 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of my userboxes, I hope. If so, let me know and I will erase them immediately. --Anthony.bradbury 19:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was thinking of, for example, "This user is a pedophile". That one caused all kinds of trouble a while back. And that's kind of my point, too: it's much more rewarding to build/protect the encyclopedia than to try and regulate the community. I guess I'm glad that there are Wikipedians who are willing to do the latter, so I get to stay out of it! Melchoir 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. It is sometimes difficult, is it not, to pick up on the nuances of comments in the absence of intonation? As you well know, I spend my whole on-line life building and/or protecting the encyclopedia!--Anthony.bradbury 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Userpage

Could you help me make some changes to my userpage? Thanks!Neptunekh 23:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what changes? Melchoir 05:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

User:Anthony.bradbury wishes you a Merry Christmas!

I do not know if you celebrate Christmas. If you do not, please accept this greeting in the spirit in which it was offered.

If you do, then I wish you and yours a happy and peaceful Christmas season, and a relaxed and prosperous New Year.--Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sure, merry Christmas! And thanks for the note! Melchoir 21:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birger Dahlerus

You know, it is really quite fascinating. Now I know, and wholly and unequivocally approve of, the Wiki policy of open editing. This article has remained unwritten, and unmourned, and unmissed, ever since the project started. And when I create the article, everyone in the world has something to add to it. So why did they not write it? Is it all down to you, and me, and about fifty original authors? And if so, why? When you answer this, if you do, answer as you would to someone who has had five vodkas and is feeling faintly pissed off.--Anthony.bradbury 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do rather suspect that the job of rounding out the encyclopedia with these lesser-known but still important topics is being carried out by a small minority of the population. It's probably closer to 500 than to 50. But it does take a little something extra to be able to identify and add new encyclopedic topics; you have to be interested in some area and have good sources. Probably a lot of editors see Wikipedia as their main source for information, and Google as their source of verification. Given that we have a million and a half articles and most of them don't have any redlinks any more, I can see why it's getting harder to start new articles.

As for Birger Dahlerus in particular, I would guess that its exposure on the Main Page is the only reason why all those people interacted with it. Unfortunately, there's no way to know how many or how few people noticed that it was missing from Wikipedia previously. But you should take it as a compliment that so many editors found it interesting! I've seen plenty of DYKs go by without nearly as much interest.

I guess I don't really have a point to make, so I'll leave it there. Congrats on the exposure! Melchoir 21:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA qualification

Melchoir, I have recently spent some time on The WP:RfA talk page discussing the system for approval of admin requests. Would you like to stick a comment in? For or against, as you wish. I'm getting independent.--Anthony.bradbury 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it looks like there's plenty of discussion already; I'd rather not get involved. Melchoir 04:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amfipoli, Greece

Hi. I made added some info and some external links on a page about a town called Amfipoli in Greece. Could You check it out and maybe it edit please? Thank you! Neptunekh 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do; it looks like the other editors have already had a look. Melchoir 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Editor

Melchoir, is there ant way of checking on the well-being of a suddenly silent editor who does not have their e-mail enabled? User:docEss, who I know has been a pain in the a**e to a number of editors, but whom I have always got on well with, has dropped out; from at least one edit daily to none for the last six weeks. May be by choice, certainly, but the last few edits gave no hint of an intention to quit, and while there are blocks in the past I see none recently. Just a tad worried.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of; sorry! I guess you could try contacting docEss's close friends and enemies, as they may be, to learn more? Melchoir 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from me, I don't think DocEss has any friends. I'm not even quite sure about me!--Anthony.bradbury 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would probably make it easier for an editor to leave. Ah well, we can't retain 'em all... Melchoir 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LRL vector as FAC

Hi Melchoir, happy New Year! :)

Perhaps rashly, I nominated the Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector for FAC. Could you please look it over and (hopefully) support it on its nomination page? You always have good insights, and I'd appreciate your comments, whatever you decide. Thanks muchly! Willow 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year! Sure, I'll drop by. Melchoir 04:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 69.40.254.149

I see you blocked User:69.40.254.149 for vandalism, but did not put a {{test5}} or {{Verror5}} on their talk page. Is there any reason for this? I am not an admin - am I allowed to add these tags to a blocked user in this situation? – Tivedshambo (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a reason, but it isn't a good one: I'm forgetful! Thanks for catching the mistake. I think it would be okay, in general, to add missing block messages yourself. After all, they don't assert that you blocked the user, only that they're been blocked. Melchoir 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Melchoir, my current mainspace count is 1758, my user talk is 2404; a large proportion of these are vandal warnings. Do you feel, looking ahead to an RfA perhaps next month, trhat these figures are in reasonable proportion. If you choose to look, you will see that my wiki count and wiki talk count is much higher than last time; I really do not have the urge to get into portal, template or image talk. Will this destroy me next time, do you think?--Anthony.bradbury 00:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to me that the figures are reasonable for someone who wants the admin tools. What says admin more than a record of a thousand warning templates as a regular user? But then, that's what I did, too, so I'm biased!

It's hard to say if 360/39 Wikipedia/talk edits are enough, since no one in the RfA gave a number. The standards people have claimed seem to fall mostly in the 100-300 range, so you're probably doing well there.

As for portals, templates, and images, I wonder how important they are. I know one of the early oppose voters mentioned them, but the others seem to focus on WP alone, so that's a good sign. I don't think they'll destroy you next time. Melchoir 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked to see how many warning templates I had used. Wow!--Anthony.bradbury 23:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]