User talk:Melchoir

/Archive1 October 2005 to January 2006

Slide rule

Thanks for the note! It gave me the incentive to add one more tidbit about the CSL: On the reverse of it is a handy list of 38 metric/imperial conversion factors... ;-) --Janke | Talk 08:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

zero waldo tolerance

i LOVE people who write about themselves :) 0waldo 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. Melchoir 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

?

howd u find out about me?MichaelHa 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof that yada yada yada ...

Thanks for fixing the typo. Drop me a line if you can see where I'm heading with it ;) Confusing Manifestation 08:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, despair will be the next stage. Still, if this works, it hits at one of their biggest arguments. Confusing Manifestation 11:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy-able Material

Hi there Melchoir: I noticed your little plea for help at the former article Musecast. You're right: it was previously put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musecast. Actually, material that has been deleted before falls under WP:CSD criteria. It falls under the "General #4" on that page. I've then gone ahead and deleted the page.If you see more stuff like that while on RC Patrol (which you probably will :-), you can use the {{subst:tl:repost}} template. Thanks for all the hard work. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh! You're right! Well, I'm not going to be a "rouge admin"; I restored the article, and am going to put it up on AfD. FYI, the instructions to AfD an article are right on (suprise!) WP:AFD. Basically, it involves clicking a few links, adding some templates, and sticking them on the correct pages. I think there's a javascript file somewhere that does this automagically, but I can't remember where. Hope this helps, and thanks for the tip. Cheers, Bratsche^talk 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit hesitant to sheepishly admit that until five minutes ago, I didn't either. You can see from the history of the article I had to mess up the banner a bit. Oh well, you learn something new everyday. Bratsche^talk 04:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Durians on MRT

>No durians. Priceless. Melchoir 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Yeah, my first image in a featured article :) Took the photo while I was in Singapore last year and then it turned out to be useful for something :) Stevage 09:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

When you find a copyvio

Can you tag it as suck, otherwise it shows up on the vandalbot system and is likely to be reverted. Thanks! Tawker 04:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if the article itself isn't a copyvio? I don't know which tag I would use to get rid of just part of an article... Melchoir 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Proof that ..AGAIN

Hello, just a quick comment, i realise anon is rude, but be careful, it'd be a great loss if an admin with a rash took your comment as WP:CIVIL. On a side-note, I'm tempted to copy the uncyclopedia article... I think that'd end all the discussion. ;) Jesushaces 22:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but I didn't mean my post as an attack per se; if anything, I'm trying to de-escalate on Wikipedia by giving up on defending myself or the actual mathematics. On the other hand, Uncyclopedia actually encourages flamewars. Melchoir 22:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Do you think it'd be unreasonable to rename the article to something like Is 0.999… = 1? and create 2 sections, each with its own proofs that 0.999…{=;!=}1, so that users may draw their own conclusions? Jesushaces

Um, are you talking about the Wikipedia article or the Uncyclopedia article? Melchoir 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article. Jesushaces 00:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea on two levels. First, it would be misleading. Second, and this is arguably more important to Wikipedia, you'll never find a reliable source that offers a proof that 0.999... < 1. Melchoir 01:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I just thought it would end all the discussion if we'd put some 'reasons why people think 0.999... does not equal...' in the article. Thanks Jesushaces 01:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah! I think I misunderstood you. You'll never find a proof that 0.999... < 1, but there is literature on reasons why people think 0.999... < 1. I'm actually in favor of including the latter, so if that's what you're proposing, I agree. However, I must warn you that we're in the minority. Melchoir 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support such a section, although I suspect the anons would be fighting tooth and nail to make it the focus of the article (including possibly moving the page). Still, give it a shot, and if all else fails we can start an edit war and make it the first mathematical page to be protected from editing (ok, just joking there, but if it was protected from anonymous edits it would solve a few problems, wouldn't it?) Confusing Manifestation 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you think of this? I put it in my user space, since I'm not sure about creating a subpage in the article. If you like this, we could post it to the Wikiproject Math and ask for the community's consensus. Jesushaces 05:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to tell you that I don't mean it to be a final version, but rather that you please help edit it. Jesushaces 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't given it much thought today; it's the weekend, after all! I think it should be moved towards the end, and it must include 1)sources for any misconceptions that we claim are "common" and 2) rebuttals. Since you've invited me to edit it, I'll show you what I mean... Melchoir 02:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this? The way I see it, they'll either finally explain in detail what the hell they're going on about on the talk page, or else hang themselves with their own rope. Confusing Manifestation 06:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A little barnstar

Hello, I added a little barnstar to your page that's long overdue, thank you for your discussions at Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1! You and Rasmus have a lot of patience to explain things to people who don't accept proven facts and who ridicule serious mathematics. -- KittySaturn 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Celestia

I was not searching for it so you made me discover it in WP:RD. Indeed I did not knew something like that could exist. Thks again. --DLL 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Afd

This edit was awesome. I was drinking a coke at the time and spewed it all over my keyboard. I was worried I was going to be on the wrong side of this issue, but you persuaded me. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 02:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, it's not actually my keyboard. It's a college terminal. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

hi

Quote: I'm sorry if I misunderstand you, but you told me that you had "finished the translation" of the article Brahmajala Sutta. Are you saying that there is a similar article in Indonesian that you have translated into English, or by "translation" do you mean that some quotes from the sutta had to be translated, but the commentary is still yours? Yes. the article is in Indonesian but I translated and summarized it into english. Of course there is commentary from me. Shall i made it clear which one is commentary which is translation?

I would try to see for myself, but the link Brahmajala Sutta for Indonesian doesn't work for me, and anyway, I regret that I cannot read Indonesian... Melchoir 23:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC) What a pity. i will try to access it, but you can see the english translation links. it turns out to be pretty much better (haha). but i will work something out. thanks. Tasfan 01:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey another funny discovery. The 'hatred' (dosa) when you click on dosa, it turns out to be an Indian recipee. In fact, the article also had the 'See also' section: 'The Perfect Dosa'. What a laugh. I decided not to change it for the moment. Done the present tensing up to 30% thx for the format edit Tasfan 09:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Melchoir 09:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

re: VfD on Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

1. Delete, because the facts of this article can be found in the Robert Baden-Powell main article. (The rest of this has nothing to do with why it should be deleted.) IMO, this article just adds some pretty sleazy and meanspirited insinuations which would easily be libelous if the man weren't dead. Baden-Powell grew up in Victorian England, attended a public boarding school, and served in the British Army for much of his life. That kind of life would make any man seem a little odd from a contemporary viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianGCrawfordMA (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 February 2006.

   * Yes, many of the facts can be found in the main article, because that's where they came from. Have you wondered why? And, "sleazy and meanspirited"? Did you read past the title? Would you make that accusation to the faces of the contributors who wrote it? Melchoir 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to your questions: 1) Yes, I read the whole article. 2) Yes, I would most likely tell the authors to their faces what I thought about their article, using stronger words than I used above. BrianGCrawfordMA 23:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you've read the article, I find it incredible that you think it's sleazy. And meanspirited? I personally hate being told to assume good faith, but really, there's no evidence that anyone is trying to smear the subject. It's sad that you would want to accuse the contributors so strongly, and I can only hope that if you actually had the opportunity in real life, you might pause and reconsider. Melchoir 23:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads-up and the link on my talk page, mate, much appreciated. Nach0king 00:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

But of course! Have fun! Melchoir 00:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

DNA computing

Hi Melchoir, you just added a link to the "main" article for DNA computing in the DNA article; the section says DNA plays an important role in computer science, both as a motivating research problem and as a method of computation in itself.; however, the DNA computing article talks only about the latter, so I was not sure if the indication of a "main" article was entirely relevant; what do you think ? Cheers, Schutz 09:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right; I got carried away because I thought Jer ome had dropped the only link to DNA computing, but it does appear farther down, where it belongs. Melchoir 09:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

I think that it is utterly deplorable that you are referring to other WP users as sockpuppets when you don't even know them and have no proof thereof...it seems as though you and where are of the same ilk

That's funny, coming from a sockpuppet. Melchoir 01:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge from three forms of mathematical induction

Your edit purporting to merge material from that article into mathematical induction is the most colossal missing of the point and the worst edit I've seen in a long time. Essentially you tried to paraphrase material from an article that you plainly did not understand at all, and then you put it at a completely random place in the article you added it to, with no thought at all of what the article looked like after your edit. Michael Hardy 01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't so hostile, I might feel bad about immediately putting Three forms of mathematical induction on AfD. But I don't. Melchoir 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not hostile. You were very irresponsible in what you did. I said so and I stand by it. That is not hostility. It is gratuitous abuse to call it hostility. Michael Hardy 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"most colossal missing of the point and the worst edit I've seen in a long time"? Melchoir 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems pretty hostile to me. dbtfz^talk 03:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The AfD debate was inconclusive, but the discussion continues at User talk: Michael Hardy and Talk:Mathematical induction. I have included a slightly revised version of my reformulation (of a point originally made by Ryan Reich) there, with the intention that a section of Mathematical induction could be based on it. Please continue your contributions toward one great article on induction. Joshuardavis 19:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Kudos...

... for handling yourself with dignity and composure. "I am not aware of a definition of 'insult' that excludes accusations of stupidity." Priceless!  : ) dbtfz^talk 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to pose, but thanks anyway! Melchoir 06:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thead Ajnin

Have you ever heard of a little project called, www.nationstates.net ? Well this is what it is from. Much love, [The ninja]

WANG

Wang? Wang! 130.65.109.105

Now that's the kind of attention you can get from nowhere else. Melchoir 22:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Just want to say, good job cleaning up disambiguation pages! I try to help when I can, else I just add the {{disambig-cleanup}} tag. Cheers. :) Gflores ^Talk 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch out!

Don't get hacked by Balthasar.

That's the correct reference, right? --Cyde Weys 06:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Um... I think so! I got my username from Chrono Trigger, roughly speaking, and since this is the second time I've been asked, I think I'll jot something on my user page. Speaking of which... is it "sideways" or what? Melchoir 06:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my name isn't very hard to figure out :-P And the misunderstanding between Eva and Chrono Trigger makes sense ... lots of games and anime draw from the same mythological universe. --Cyde Weys 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, Eva! I never did understand what the crap happened there. Computers, though... yes. Melchoir 07:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Kind thanks for explaining!   —Daphne A 11:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Melchoir 08:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

deviantart

Fair enough that you nominated it. I do think that the top deviantart artists deserve articles - many of them are recognised outside of deviantart, but maybe this only applies to about 20 or so, so I agree with you that there should be some sort of way to determine which should be included -- Astrokey44|talk 13:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Skux?

Dude skux is a real existing word. People do use it. I mean really, would anyone just Make up a word that is as stupid sounding as skux? Ok, so the actual article on the word is dubious, the examples are pretty stupid, and its all a bit of a joke, but the word is real! so come on, dont keep bitching about it and trying to get it deleted. If you dont think it is well known enough to include, then why not start using skux in your vocabulary from now on? Well, thats my 20 seconds of stupidity for the evening, laters.

Stalin Note

Current editing fads might favor "Stalin note" but I'd prefer "Stalin Note" because it is "the" Stalin Note so I hope that I can change the article title.User:Wikist

I'm not allowed to move it because I'm new so hopefully someone else can do it.

Thank you for the guidance and help.

Dude its MY page

I can see how there could be an objection to doing this to someone elses page, but surely i can do what i want with mine??? Why do you actually care anyway? Who is gunna go to my page anyway?

And you think Lloyd roffe is real?

OMG! wtf?, i know i am a collosal prick who is just pissing up the system, but dude, lloyd is this guy in my goddamn class - occonor is my bloody english teacher, and who on earth knows where that pic came from, he's like 17! I thought you people were more dillegant than to let that slip through the system! I recreated the page to piss him off, and draw attention to it, imagine how amused i was to find you accuse me of ripping off what you thought was a perfectly legitimate article, and what i know to be rubbish. try googling lloyd roffe, and see what you get!

Nah, thats all

yeah, thats the only thign that anyone i know has managed to slip past you guys, I will stop with it now - the novelty is starting to wear off a tad, its just that we were trying to see if we could get anything to stay on. I gotta say i am impressed with the system, it seems almost impossible to get anything through, however, once again i cant believe that lloyd roffe got through!

cool

lol, sweet then - i will do my bit. how is the site moderated anyhow? do people just look at the new articles and tag for deletion all the stupid ones?

thanks

Hey Melchoir, thanks for all the help and info! Very much appreciated!--WonderbreadUSA 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem!

Thank you for doing the dirty work that I probably should do more often. It's the least I can do! Jarfingle 09:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

richard d north

Dear Melchoir,

Thanks for your (sceptical) note. I am indeed Richard D North (of www.richarddnorth.com). I am alert to the perils of self-promotion and therefore went I hope someway toward self-deprecation. I have had the temerity to put links to www.globalwarmingissues.com, in the hopes that it will be thought genuinely pro bono. Ditto www.chernobyllegacy.com and - I fear - www.direct-action.info.

I am v impressed by wikipedia's Chernobyl coverage - it avoids some very large pitfalls down which plenty of tohers have tumbled.

It's silly of me not to have paid attention wikipedia before now and I v conscious that it deserves respect.

BTW: the mistake in my username rather matches your own with yours?

Best wishes rdn Richarddnoth 12:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

List of religions that accept homosexuality redirect

I'm not sure that I understand your redirect referenced above. Sure it serves the purpose of getting rid of the text of the article, no harm done in that respect as I obviously thought it was unencyclopedic, but I think it leaves in a superfluous page cluttering up Wikipedia, which is in itself a good reason for getting rid of so many garbage articles. That someone would come to Wikipedia and type "List of religions that accept homosexuality" I find vanishingly remote, so I see no utility in the redirect, and the page remains, though in changed form. Would you mind if I reverted to last version and took to AFD? --Fuhghettaboutit 07:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all! Redirects are cheap, but sometimes they're also pointless; if you want it gone, that's fine by me. Melchoir 08:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking 147.226.127.215

Melchoir - just thought I'd make you aware of this - searching for Robbins, Inc. on Wikipedia, got to Robbins and found this delightful tidbit. Went to user and found he also edited Jon, went there and found another delightful tidbit. I was wondering about the feasiblilty of taking back his contributions to the previous (disambiguation page on one or the other, I believe) and perhaps blocking him from giving the world any more delightful little tidbits. Thank you.

Ebac on keyboard 15:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the repost. Ebac on keyboard 15:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Let me see about this IP... Melchoir 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the tips! I've reverted the nonsense at Jon and Robbins and put them on my watchlist to prevent further vandalism. I've also left a test template at the offending IP's talk page; if the IP continues to vandalize pages, other users will ideally add stronger test templates until finally it's blocked. I don't mind doing this stuff, but in the future, you can too! I'm not an admin, so you have as much power as I do to combat vandalism. If you need to know more about your options, just ask! Melchoir 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Camp Barton

Could you please expedite the deletion of the previous Camp Barton page? I am working on typing up something of my own currently on Camp Barton/Temp. I realize that my posting of this copyrighted material was a mistake and I will post only pictures that I hold copyright to and add only text which is barely, if at all influenced by an outside source. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia a place to be enjoyed by all.

Ebac on keyboard 16:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I can try. The website that hosts the original text is bpmlegal.com, a legal firm specializing in intellectual property; and since the website is a .com, the article might qualify for speedy deletion. I'll add the tag and see if an admin agrees. Melchoir 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bout the no explain PROD

Sorry, I hit the wrong button and before I could react, you edited it and put the reason in for me, thanks! American Patriot 1776 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem! I was actually about to prod it myself; you must've hit that button after I loaded the page but before I hit "edit". Melchoir 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Military establishment of the Roman Republic

I see that it's been copyedited, but it's still clumsily written IMO. Far too more "flowery" language. Me and my girlfriend have been working on rewriting it (admittedly not for a while as we're both very busy) with the help of a friend of ours who knows a lot about the topic. You can see what we've done so far here: User:Nach0king/Military establishment of the Roman Republic

If you think it's fine as is then that's OK, we'll move onto something else. But if you can see the merit in entirely rewriting it, then we'll no doubt continue :) Nach0king 19:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see! No, I haven't really read through the article; I simply saw that Kessler edited it with a summary including "template removed", so I thought the job was done. Now that I read a few spots more closely, I agree that it still needs work. If you'd like to restore the tags to either Military establishment of the Roman Republic or User:Nach0king/Military establishment of the Roman Republic, I certainly won't complain! Melchoir 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Brendan McKenna Article

I have agreed to delete this article as I agree with your opinion. I now need permission from an admin to delete this article. Any help would be welcomed.