User talk:Melchoir/Archive9

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.

Copyright problems with Theodore Deglin

Hi Melchoir re: Theodore Deglin copyright problem. Im very sorry and I will rewrite information and resubmit. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandanghost (talk • contribs) 02:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Theodore Deglin Melchoir (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Faction task force

Yeah, I thought it would make it a user subpage automatically by adding the "/". I instead made it User:GroundZ3R0 002/Red Faction task force, is that the right way to do it? And thanks for speedy deleting my botched page. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I haven't yet... but no prob! Melchoir (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple

As you added the notice in Multiple (mathematics), why is MathWorld not an unreliable source?--Octra Bond (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MathWorld is, at best, a collaborative encyclopedia comparable to Wikipedia. In my experience it has an unfortunate tendency to promote neologisms that have no attestation in the literature. It may be useful for summarizing mathematical results, but it can't be relied on for language. Melchoir (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references. Is that enough to remove the notice? --Octra Bond (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at Talk:Multiple (mathematics) Melchoir (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bayliner v. Crow

Oh, it had the information necessary for a good introduction to the subject material. The problem is that it was in completely the wrong format - what I call "not an article". In fact, it felt rather like it had been copied verbatim from a textbook (and not just any textbook: my guess is that it's from Contracts Seventh Edition by E. Allian Farnsworth).

Should we have an article on Bayliner v. Crow? I dunno. But we shouldn't have that as an article.

Also - about my userpage? Thank you for caring. DS (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, my original impression was that there were too many grammatical errors to be a copy from a textbook. On the other hand, there are also many spelling errors, which does suggest a low-quality transcription. Melchoir (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muushig

Why did you delete Muushig? The deletion discussion didn't conclude that Muushig should be deleted, but the discussion result was to delete Mushgi. Please restore the article. Where are my contributions? I spent a well over 5-6 hours to write the rules of the game. This is a really strange act from you. GenuineMongol (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my understanding of the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushgi by Sandstein (talk · contribs) is that the article was supposed to be deleted, but that he forgot to delete the moved article as well as the redirect. I could be wrong; you should ask him if you're concerned. I have no particular opinion about the right outcome, although I do sympathize with the loss of your hard work. As the AfD says, an admin can restore the text if you'd like to continue working on it. Good luck! Melchoir (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to continue working on the article. I am going to create the Mongolian page for the article. Although I have not started this article, I am very concerned now that some ignorant English administrators deleted an article for one of the most popular card games in Mongolia without even looking at the hard work put on by their colleagues. Of course, the card games are not published a lot. Even English speakers' game sheephead is not widely publicized. It is a really strange act. I am an administrator in the Mongolian Wikipedia and I have not seen such acts in the Mongolian Wikipedia. I am just stunned by your strange acts. GenuineMongol (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's now at User:GenuineMongol/Muushig.

I understand that you're surprised and upset by the deletion, but please note that Sandstein has explained very clearly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mushgi why the article was deleted: sufficient sources were not found. For comparison, Sheepshead is also poorly referenced, but it has a "Further reading" section pointing to possible references, so that article can be marked for cleanup rather than deleted.

If you collect reliable sources for Muushig, then that article can be reinstated and kept as well. Melchoir (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Poker has a single reference which is a fan site and still exists without any deletion discussion etc. There are many such fictional (!) card game articles with one or two fan site references existing in your Wikipedia. And you don't want an article for a real card game which is one of the favorite pastimes of Mongolians. What a logical policy! GenuineMongol (talk) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the second link with the link of the Computer Times (a popular computer magazine in Mongolia) link. I think it will be sufficient to restore the article. GenuineMongol (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dragon Poker: There's plenty of crap on Wikipedia. A few years from now, that article may well be deleted per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR. The fact that it exists today doesn't tell us anything about which articles should exist. This is a common argument: see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.

Re the links: Please ask Sandstein about this. My knowledge of the AfD is relatively shallow. Melchoir (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Museum of Patras

Hey sorry for the copy paste thing, I didn't know how to move the article to the correct page tittle. Now that I have already created the new page and I can't move the article, what should I do? Can you just delete the new page I did and use the move button on the old one? Iaberis (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I use the Requested Move template? Iaberis (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, I took care of it. Melchoir (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! :) Iaberis (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MakerBot

Thanks :-) Actually, I didn't find this by reading Jimbo's tweet; I noticed it in Recent Changes. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found it on Newpages myself; I avoid Twitter on the grounds that it sounds silly! Melchoir (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Mass Overloaded

In my opinion, the article on Center of mass tries to be too many things to too many people. It has sections on mathematics, physics, engineering and astrophysics/astronomy, as well as whole sub-sections about "Locating the center of mass" that could be considered how-to manuals and removed.

This article should either (a) be better organized (if possible) or (b) split into multiple disambiguation articles, like Center of mass (mathemetics), Center of mass (astronomy), etc. I can handle the astronomy perspective but the math and engineering are beyond me. Melchoir, according to the talk page, you were active on this article in 2006. Are you willing to try again? See my discussion here for more info. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I might chime in, but I'm not sure that I'll want to wade into that mess again... Melchoir (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Bernard Miller Jr

Hey, could you take a look at the article and see if it qualifies as a CSD G3 (blatant hoax)? I'm unable to verify anything in the article including the existence of any of his supposed opponents. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'll just prod it. Melchoir (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of AFDing with the hope of people voting speedy delete in case you didn't want to delete but a prod is fine as well... I'm fairly convinced it's a hoax so I was hoping we could get rid of it in a somewhat speedy fashion for once (not the first time this has happened). Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seven days isn't the end of the world. This way, with any luck, no one will have to give it a second thought! Melchoir (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Out Kaine

Sparky-x has created this article for the third time to day. Rather than CSD tag it again, I've referred the article to AfD for discussion. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the note! Melchoir (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of PROD from Sombrero function

Hello Melchoir, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Sombrero function has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation -tag &c.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEY! I know my rights!

User talk:Anthony.bradbury is a Nazi who hates the Jews. I am a proud Jew. I am not going to let him stick my nose in dirt=! My grandfather died in Nazi Germany during WW2! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendallf (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for reverting my talk page. This editor appears to have a strange attitude, as shown by his posting on this page. I shall watch him. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! Melchoir (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments! I'm a new user, but I have been editing Wikipedia anonymously for some time, and I only decided to create an account just recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcperson89 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Melchoir. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Replyed Tim1357 (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Canella

On October 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Canella, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 09:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Saltine cracker challenge

On November 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Saltine cracker challenge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 07:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

saltines

I may give it a try next time I happen to be around an open box of saltines. It bugs the crap out of me when commercial products are plugged on wikipedia, especially in DYK and FA-of-the-day. Although this DYK wasn't one of the more obnoxious instances and it surely wasn't one of the intentional ones, I was thinking of going out to the store to buy some saltines for the experiment when I figuratively froze in my tracks and realized what was going on, and saw that I had to stop, and at least not buy any just because of the DYK. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but if you shrink from doing what you want to do because you fear being ruled by corporate interests, is not your behavior therefore being ruled by corporate interests? Is it worth it to "stick it to the man" financially if the price is your own freedom?

I for one have no regrets if other people happen to profit from my articles, and in fact I already spent $2 on a one-pound box myself! Melchoir (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned about my personally being ruled by corporate interests, at least when it comes to stuff like this. It's wikipedia that I don't want ruled by those interests. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A noble concern, but one that is causally unrelated to throwing around the H-word or to food purchases. Melchoir (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the H-word is. I'm not boycotting saltines or anything like that, I'm just going to wait a little while before buying any, in order to dissociate the purchase from wikipedia, given that I don't buy them that often in regular circumstances. How did your experiment go? 69.228.171.150 (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Hoax" 2. I've looked for references in the psychology literature to the time-decay of reactance; I haven't found any yet though. 3. I got four people to try it; one of them got pretty close! I think if it were 5 in 60, or 6 in 80, he would have made it. Melchoir (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about psychological dissociation. If I buy saltines, I know why I bought them. I want to decorrelate the purchase in Nabisco's sales statistics from the Wikipedia appearance. Btw, a half pound box of saltines at my corner store is $3.95! I guess I better shop more carefully if you're really getting them for $2 a pound. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I really doubt that they'd notice, but I have to grant that it's possible. And Safeway for the win! Melchoir (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mack Brown Curse

Hi Melchoir, good news - found a verifiable media article that specifically discusses the Mack Brown Curse. I have added it to the MBC entry as a reference for your consideration. The media source is a Yahoo!/Rivals network site, and I am still looking for the ESPN version as well. Please let me know if this is in line with what we discussed :^)

I've seen it; more at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mack Brown Curse. Melchoir (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of FIFA Approved

I have nominated FIFA Approved, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA Approved. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical hardwood hammock article

I've noticed that several articles I have written link to the article tropical hardwood hammock on your user page. I was wondering if you would make it a regular article, since it contains far more information than the brief description I wrote for the South Florida rocklands article. It has a few issues, such as spelling errors and the management section probably isn't necessary, but overall I think it would be an excellent addition. I can help with some of the changes it will need.TDogg310 (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd almost forgotten about that page! Please feel free to edit and move the article into mainspace yourself; all I did was copy the text from the source PDF and apply some regexes to wikify the format and link species, plus some manual cleanup here and there. The task I wasn't looking forward to was trying to wikify the inline Harvard citations; I'm still not sure if that can be done except manually, which would be really tedious. I agree that the management section can probably go; there's some good encyclopedic material in there but the tone would need significant cleanup. The last two sections probably also need a scrub to check for out-of-date information, as the source is 10 years old. Melchoir (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

constructive edits at .9

Hi, your edits are in the right direction; the only thing I would suggest is keeping the <1,2,3,...> notation for sequences, to be consistent with Goldblatt. Tkuvho (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I assume you're Katz, I'm not surprised you think so! ;-)

Anyway, the round parentheses are more consistent with usage on Wikipedia, including earlier in the article. Melchoir (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter me. Incidentally, an even more relevant reference is by Ely R. (2010) Nonstandard student conceptions about infinitesimals. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 41, no. 2, 117-146. Tkuvho (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked that article up. Does it mention 0.999...? Melchoir (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is about a student who quite naturally developed a Leibnizian theory of infinitesimals to help her understand calculus, and in particular to account for .999...9 falling short of 1 by an infinitesimal .000...1, all the while making sure that what she says is off the record, since she knew this sort of thing does not go over well in college. Tkuvho (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Then yes, it too should be represented in the article! I hope for our sake that it has a higher actual-mathematics-to-impressionist-apologetics ratio. Melchoir (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. It is a detailed field study in a first-rate education journal, documenting the situation on the ground. Tkuvho (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, something for the Education section, then! I'll just add it to Further Reading for now. There are a few other items I'll add to Further Reading later; this way if we both get hit by buses tomorrow, posterity will know where to look. Melchoir (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look up the end of the verse. The piece by Choi and Do looks interesting, but I am unable to get more than the first page. Can you? Tkuvho (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not without a trip to the library. Melchoir (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Reverts

Yeah, but some of those edits were totally legit.76.173.131.60 (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, this edit wasn't vandalism... and I didn't exactly revert it. Still, since you drew my attention to the area, I fixed the bolding. Melchoir (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand further

Template:Expand further has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]