User talk:Melchoir/Archive1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Welcome!

Hello Melchoir/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for atleast showing that someone pays attention to everything. Just so you don't have to watch me, I'm not going to do that anymore. Rafterman 03:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Rune stone articles - organization

Thanks for pointing this out. What do you suggest, I could use some pointers? Should I do an article called List of Uppland Rune Inscriptions and link from there and do the same for each district.. ? I only have another 1,000 entries to do so organization is key, and not my strong side :) --Mceder 05:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Coins of Ireland & Banknotes of Ireland

I have added some more information including some coin lists to the articles. Could you please check to see if I have used the correct words in the Erse language, & whether or not they are spelt correctly, including the use of the fada accent mark? (Aidan Work 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC))

Sorry, but despite my small fraction of Irish blood, I know nothing about the Irish language! Melchoir 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn straight yo

That photo was back when I had school spirit and stuff. Good times. Gku

Nah, school spirit is overrated. Senioritis is much more fun. Salafenrin 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RuneScape cheats article under attack

Thank you, first of all for helping to control the vandals on the page, it's awesome to have some help. Jagex employees are now trying to delete the article by making claims that it is POV, 'illegal information', and instructional. Please comment on the talk page, I'm outnumbered there 5 to 1 currently. I'm writing to all the editors that have helped on the page and pleading for help defending the article. Thank you! Jonathan888 (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment, there is a rather long 'vote for removal' section in the discussion page - it hasn't moved to the AfD phase yet. I shot off a whole slew of messages this morning to try to get some support and the editors replying to that call for help suggested moving parts of the article to book format which sounds ok to me.Jonathan888 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Algebraic structure

Hi, Lethe! I don't have any problem with your edit to algebraic structure, but I find your edit summary puzzling. Since I'm responsible for the current layout, maybe I can explain... a division ring is not an algebraic structure in the sense of Universal Algebra, since the division ring axioms are not all identities. Division rings are, however, algebraic structures in a broader sense that includes integral domains and fields, and I think the article makes the distinction between the two sections clear. As for groups, yes, they're algebraic structures in every sense of the phrase: sets with operations of arity 0, 1, and 2 satisfying certain identities. Do you agree? Melchoir 22:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Melchoir. Yes, I agree with what you've said, and I think the article presents it clearly, I learned a lot from reading it. If you're responsible for that article, then let me say, good work!

Regarding my edit: I'm actually not very familiar with the subject, so if you want to revert my edit, I won't object, but what I had in mind is this: just because the defining characteristic of a integral domain ring is not an identity, does not prove that certain substructures are not algebraic. The article provides a perfect example: a unital magma is not an algebraic structure, because the existence of an identity element is not an identity (and for general unital magmas, the identity element need not be unique, so it cannot be recast as an algebraic structure). However, for a certain substructure of a unital magmas, namely groups, the other properties guarantee the uniqueness of the identity element, thus allowing these particular unital magmas to be recast as algebraic structures. Similarly, just because a division ring is a integral domain with extra properties, that alone does not guarantee that the division ring itself cannot be recast as an algebraic structure. In fact, it almost looks like it can be recast: simply use the inverse map, a unary operation which exists for any integral domain which is a division ring. So the real reason that a division ring fails to be an algebraic structure is not that it's a certain type of integral domain, but rather that its inverse map cannot be defined at 0. I'm not sure whether this constitutes a proof that a division ring cannot be an algebraic structure, but it looks like it might. If not, then my edit doesn't really help too much.

I hope you see what I had in mind with the edit. Now that you know why I did it, perhaps you're in a better position than I am to see whether it is actually appropriate for the article. Thanks! -lethe ^talk 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying about unital magmas. Of course, we could just define a unital magma to have a distinguished identity element, but you seem to be suggesting that such a definition isn't standard. As I don't know what the standard definition is, I'll defer to you; if you want to move unital magmas out of the first section, I'll understand why.

Well, I don't want to move unital magmas out of the section for two reasons: 1. unital magmas are actually not mentioned in the first section, so there's nothing to move. I just brought it up because I though it ought to be an counterexample to the lucky accident that groups suffer. 2. However, upon further thought, induced by your reply, I see that unital magmas actually will not serve as counterexamples: the identity will be unique there. I might be able to save my original point if I weakened the requirements even more (if you don't require left identity = right identity, then you definitely can have nonunique identities), but I'm not sure it's worth it, given your other comments below.

However, there is a way to conclude that any refinement of the integral domain structure isn't an algebraic structure in the sense of universal algebra, and it's a specific argument that doesn't apply to the unital magma -> group example. It's simply this: in universal algebra, because you're working with only identities, there's always a one-element algebra. However, there is no one-element integral domain, and without further thought we can conclude that there is no one-element division ring, no one-element field, etc., and so those concepts don't belong in universal algebra either.

I actually considered mentioning this point in the article, but if you go, for example, to Field (mathematics), it says "The requirement 0 ≠ 1 ensures that the set which only contains a single element is not a field," as if this is a good thing. Since the existence of products and free algebras seem unambiguously "good", I thought they made better examples of differences between the two sections. Melchoir 00:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it probably is a good thing to require 0 ≠ 1. But OK, I see your point. Allowing singleton fields and rings will not save them from failing to be algebraic structures, and the strongest way to see that is the lack of products or free fields. The only problem is that that result isn't obvious from the definition. But I think maybe I should remove my comment. Lemme take a look again. -lethe ^talk 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't obvious from the definition that there isn't a product of integral domains, but you can see why without getting your hands dirty. In any variety of algebras, the forgetful functor has a left adjoint, so it preserves products; the algebra product always looks like a Cartesian product. Well, if you take the Cartesian product of two integral domains, each with more than one element, then the result has nonzero zero divisors. As for free algebras, they're harder to work with; I have a book claiming that the existence of free division rings was an open question until 1966. Melchoir 01:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

University of California, Berkeley cats

Hi Melchoir. I added back Category:University of California to the University of California, Berkeley article. The reason is that after your change, it was the only UC campus no longer in Category:University of California. I think my reversion seems reasonable since the article is really a "meta entry" in Category:University of California, Berkeley, but it is a normal entry in Category:University of California. I did leave off the other removed supercat, though. The only thing that seems weird now is that some of the UC's are sorted under 'U' in Category:University of California and some are sorted by their campus location (i.e. UCI and UCSC under 'I' and 'S' respectively). Mike Dillon 16:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with your first reason, since I might just advocate removing all the duplicates from Category:University of California... but the second reason sounds okay. I just like to cut out unnecessary categories when I find them, and I move the most relevant ones to the top. Speaking of which... Melchoir 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the first reason is very strong either, but I was also thinking about the fact that Category:University of California, Merced doesn't exist yet and it would be silly to create it to hold one article we want removed from Category:University of California. The only duplicates I think should be left are the campus articles themselves and possibly something that has an independent relevance to both a campus and the system (can't think of any of these). Riverside or Davis also don't have a category. Mike Dillon 17:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1

Greetings. I don't know you, but it was not my intent to provoke you. It was my intent to convey forcefully what I thought of the revised wording. If you don't mind, let's have a more private discussion here, without anon.

The hidden truth of this article is that it is as much about politics as it is mathematics. That's a pity, but neither you nor I can change what others have done before and will do again. One indication of the dangers is the edit history of the Wikipedia article. Another is the [1] newsgroup and FAQ. The stability of the current article astounds me, and my notice on the talk page at the time I wrote it states my expectation that it would soon be trashed. My prediction of dire consequences is no more risky than predicting that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

Rewriting the article was, in part, an exercise in appearance, and in "hiding the bodies". It is ironic that you say "admit that they aren't proofs at all but sleight-of-hand". That is no accident. Here, I'm directing attention and projecting confidence. If I do a magic trick with some magicians in the audience, I can reasonably expect that they will not spill secrets ("tip the gaff") to the non-magicians. Similarly, a few people will have the background to fully understand the more honest advanced proofs. Such people will almost certainly find the theorem itself uncontroversial, and not wish to stir up trouble.

Of course, an important difference between this article and a magic trick is that what we want people to accept actually is the truth, not an illusion. But psychologically, it's not enough that it be true, it must be convincing.

I'm not sure why you bring in Richman. We are discussing real numbers; he's not. Yet your reply to me adopts his term "decimal numbers" as if they were the objects considered in the article. If I were just having fun, as he is, I could introduce different orderings, different axioms, different logics, different mappings from decimal notation to numbers, and so on. We could play with non-standard reals, incorporate infinities and infinitesimals, or delve into topos logic. It would be a disaster for the article.

It is impossible to "fix" the elementary "proofs" without destroying their worth. And I claim that it would be harmful to say these are "plausibility arguments", not proofs. Young students and the general public need certainty, so they can get on with their lives and properly use that fact that 0.999… equals 1. And as soon as we waffle, as soon as we say "plausible", we undermine the students and, worse yet, create an irresistible target for the nay-sayers. ("Well, I don't believe it!") Likewise, if the "algebra proof" itself does not assert that subtraction can proceed digit by digit, that issue will become a battleground (again). Another example: notice the wording I chose to describe the effect of multiplication by 10. Every other description I've seen says the digits shift to the left; again and again that leads someone to ask about what happens at "the end". Instead, I said "the decimal separator moves one place to the right", offering no dangling end to tempt the nay-sayers. Psychologically, this is a big difference.

For mathematicians, it might suffice to retain the Cauchy sequence approach and discard the rest. For young students puzzled by the topic, that would be "proof by intimidation", and not helpful. But look carefully at the two "advanced" proofs. Too many people who have taken a calculus class jump in and say, "The value of 0.999… as the number of digits goes to infinity is the limit, 1." What happens in response? Arguments about infinity and "is the limit" versus "approaches the limit" and on and on. A Dedekind cut approach tends to put all but qualified respondents on unfamiliar ground. It offers no opportunity to complain about limits, nor substituting infinity for a natural number, nor any of the usual muddle. Mathematically, Dedekind cuts and Cauchy sequences are equivalent routes to defining the standard reals, but the choice makes a political and psychological difference here.

Why include a Cauchy sequence proof as well? If I had not, someone would have insisted on a clumsy insertion of one. Yet I try to avoid the "hot buttons" by choosing my words carefully. I define a Cauchy sequence; no room for argument. I define reals as Cauchy sequences, with no visible limits or infinities. I define what it means for a sequence to have a limit, again with nary an infinity in sight. I map decimal notation to a Cauchy sequence, thus giving it a meaning as a real number. And I define equality, with deceptive simplicity. Yes, the mathematics is sound; but more than that, this is psychological warfare. To argue, you must understand; and once you understand, you will no longer argue.

So please work with me on this. I'd be delighted to have less awkward wording for the "algebra proof", but I hope you can now better appreciate that there's more involved than just mathematics and English. In my view, even if stasis for this article doesn't imply perfection, it's still very much a good thing! --KSmrq^T 23:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh... you make some excellent points, but I'm having trouble with the idea of purposeful deception in mathematical writing. I'm not on board with your goals for the article, and I'm too tired to really articulate why right now. Thanks for all your effort, though! Melchoir 01:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words.

"Purposeful deception" may exaggerate my concept. I would strongly prefer that everything stated in the article be truthful and correct. It's more a question of what to emphasize, what to omit, and how to word what's there.

Technically, both elementary "proofs" could be tricky to flesh out into complete form, even at the rather informal level of the advanced proofs. Yet they are both commonly offered across the web, and readers praise them. The algebraic approach probably appears more than any other, and the idea of shifting and subtracting is the canonical approach to converting any repeating decimal to rational form; it had better have some legitimacy! The appeal of the elementary proofs is such that if we omitted either one a fan would feel obliged to add it, as if we overlooked it or forgot it or didn't properly appreciate how great a proof it is.

What a predicament this leaves us! If we say nothing elementary, the web abhors the vacuum and rushes to fill it with blather. If we say only a little, we are praised by some for offering intuition, but chided by others for being dishonest. If we say somewhat more, the results are not praised, but called pretentious and unreadable. And if we go to complete formality and honesty, we lose the target audience for this section. Furthermore, anything we say (or don't say) is liable to dangle a target for attack, for yet another attempt to claim the theorem isn't true.

Think very carefully about what you seek; you may get unintended side-effects. Already just dealing with one attacker on the talk page is tedious and time-consuming, but mostly harmless. Are you prepared to constantly defend the article from a renewed stream of attackers and misguided "improvers"? That's not my idea of a productive use of time on Wikipedia. --KSmrq^T 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, i tried to make things a bit clearer (well, i honestly thought so, at least) and seems i stepped on KSmrq's toes.. bummer. I guess I will now leave the article alone, although i'd rather see a rewording of the Algebra Proof. I believe that it is something of a personal quest of KSmrq to have this article as he likes it, am I the only one who feels like this? It just seems like any wording different that his is doomed to bring terrible calamities to all thing Wikipedia. Anyway, after all this rant I guess I just wanted to say hello ;) Peace. Jesushaces 17:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Jesushaces... are you talking about your November 29 edit? I'm confused. Melchoir 19:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on now.

Dude, look at my contibutions page. Who do you know who knows 1) a little about crocheting, 2) a lot about clarinets, and 3) more about Windows common controls than is psychologically healthy? Anyway, you're the one that got me hooked on Wikipedia.

Junior Common Room Committees

I responded to your comment over on my talk page to keep our discussion all in one place. Evil Eye 21:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. Melchoir 21:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Dlyons493Bot-generated Arrondissement article layout

Hi, Thanks for the suggestion. There's no technical reason not to do it - it's just a program change. I'll have a think about it tomorrow. Dlyons493 Talk 01:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup. Melchoir 08:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I got your message. I don't usually keep my talk page blank; it only started after a personal dispute. I won't continue with that habit after I've moved on to different (less polemical) Wikipedia topics. Also, i don't know what work you're referring to (Rabindranath Tagore or Saffron). But thanks anyway. Saravask 19:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Oh, and I was referring to Saffron. Melchoir 19:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Random links page

Regarding bugzilla:4028, the files there are ready to go, they just need to be written to the CVS and they'll work. It's tagged as 'need-review' now so presumably someone is wanting to test it first. I've tested it on my local installation and it works fine. I'm not terribly familiar with the development process either, but I'm going to chase it up on wikitech-l. --bainer (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Hi Melchoir. You did a rather big edit on series (mathematics) which you said was restructuring. Well, it was still a big edit, and I wonder, would you mind writing on the talk page of that article what exactly you restructured and why? I am sure you have a good reason, it is just it is rather hard to figure out what you changed based on the diff of that article and your edit summary. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No prob. Melchoir 02:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Why? 'Dont indent text' is a basic formatting issue - indented text causes text to be formatted in a monospace codebox. 'Moderately sized paragraphs' could probably be renamed as 'Use paragraphs', because some newbies fail to break up large text blocks. Again these are comments for basic newbies. -St|eve 19:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, the first one, "Don't indent text", could be reworded, since it seems to suggest that we shouldn't indent-with-colons, which is of course the rule on talk pages. This caused some confusion; see Wikipedia_talk:Talk_pages#don.27t_indent.3F.3F. The second, "Use moderate to large blocks of text (i.e. not single sentence paragraphs)", seems a little odd. There's nothing wrong with one-sentence comments on talk pages; in fact, I'd like to see more of them! Melchoir 20:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, if you want to rewrite anything, we should take this conversation to Wikipedia talk:Talk_pages. Melchoir 20:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have a grasp, so Ill just say that the second listing referred to large blocks and not short ones. A simple, 'break up very large paragraphs' would work. -St|eve 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Done! Melchoir 21:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How to tag unsigned comments

I notice that on the infinitely recurring discussion page (you know the one I mean!) you've been adding "-anon" after anonymous posts. This gives the impression that all anonymous contributors are the same, which may or may not be true. What I have done from time to time is more informative, though a little more work.

1. Look at the talk page history, using the tab at the top of the page or a keyboard shortcut.
2. Copy the date and IP address associated with the comment you wish to tag.
3. Go back to the talk page and edit the section.
4. Where you want the tag, insert a space and the {{unsigned}} template.
5. Paste in the copied info, and move the IP address where it needs to go, with "|" separators.
6. Preview and save.

That's it. The template mechanism automagically turns

{{unsigned|158.35.225.228|16:25, 2005 December 8}}

into

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.35.225.228 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2005 December 8.

You'll have to decide if it's worth the extra trouble. If not, it's probably better to leave the anonymous remarks unsigned. (But you might want to ask for sage guidance at the Village Pump.) --KSmrq^T 20:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, KSmrq! I've wondered how that was done, although I never invested the effort to find out. Speaking of effort, I don't know if I'm going to apply this technique to The talk page, but it's good to know. Melchoir 20:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work

A request for comment has been raised on this editor, Aidan Work. You might remember him on the banknotes and coinage of the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 20:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Da (Golden) Bears

Yeah, I thought about that, and as I'm a Washington Huskies fan, I could swear I'd heard them referred to as the Bears more often than the Golden Bears. But you would clearly know better than me. I actually thought of just using "Cal Bears football" (just like I almost did Pitt Panthers football). Would you prefer that, or "California Golden Bears football" or something else? Anything's fine with me. (P.S. "Young Cougars". Snort.)--Mike Selinker 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... tough choice, but I think brevity wins on this one. "Cal Bears football" is just fine. Melchoir 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Mike Selinker 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, good work. Melchoir 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rivers and pi

Nice to have a concrete reference for that, too bad I can't access jstor from where I am, I guess I'll have to accept it. And as for watching different articles... Give me a better math reference on the web and I'm out of here, otherwise, I'm here to stay. --Monguin61 22:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said. As for the article, you should check it out when you get the chance; it's got some pretty figures. Melchoir 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See two paragraphs I entered in the talk/pi page. I can't get to jstor and sci.amer. to check on Luna Leopold. He wrote a book about geometry of river flow which I saw and read partially in the 1990s when I was reviewing an environmental project and wanted to understand stability of meanders. Can't remember which one, the online catalog I've checked shows like 15 works by him. Jclerman 23:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Article talk care

You may find it helpful to read my observations elsewhere; also, this discussion. But mostly I wanted to urge care in how and when you remove remarks from talk pages. There is disagreement among Wikipedians about whether it should be done at all. Clearly copyvio material must be removed. Aggressively hateful and foul language would be removed by many. Then there's the line that you're treading at Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1. I won't say you've gone too far, I'm just reminding you to be conservative. We really don't want to imply that it's acceptable for anyone to remove remarks they don't like. Keep in mind that if you remove misbehavior before an admin sees it, the offender may escape a well-deserved block. If it's worth removing, it's worth reporting to an admin. --KSmrq^T 01:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and for sharing your thoughts. I've always figured that I should just be as bold as I like in managing The talk page, and if I got too close to any lines, the community would tell me about it. Well, Deco has expressed concern, and now so have you, and in any case I admit that my policies have failed, so from now on I'll try to ignore the attacks instead. Melchoir 04:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Or bring them to the attention of an admin. (I've been sorely tempted to say "If you won't sign your posts they'll be deleted", but have (so far) restrained myself.) But you are absolutely correct in feeling that uncivil behavior should not be tolerated; civility is a core principle of Wikipedia. --KSmrq^T 08:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

The other sane guy in that argument is off to write an exam...grind the bastards down for me :P Nah, seriously though, thanks for being rational Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm working on a take-home exam right now... out of curiosity, how did you find the AfD in the first place? Melchoir 12:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes...now I'm at the school and it turns out the exam wasn't at class-time, it's 2 hours later than I thought, yay! Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, uh, have fun! Melchoir 13:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

He-Man madness

You probably better go ahead with getting that lock on the He-Man article or you'll be doing reverts all day...ka1iban 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll see how far my patience goes... Melchoir 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

MagneticUnderlay

- Nah, it's not that I'm Australian, as a matter of fact, i hate Australia; it gets so hot here that English people are routinely hospitalised with terrible heat exhaustion. When it's 43 Degrees celsius outside, i can understand why. Plus, i've never seen snow! I said "You capitalists make me sick sometimes" because i'm going through a bit of a Communist phase; John Howard (Our Prime Minister) has introduced these horribly unfair workplace reforms, so heaps of our Trade unions have joined the CPA (Communist Party Australia). Oh, and by the way; I'm Sorry for last night. Like i said, I'm going through A Communist phase right now, which I'm sure wont last long. My holidays just started and i was with a bunch of friends, so hopefully you can forgive the way i acted. MagneticUnderlay 23:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Eh, don't mention it! I've dealt with some real jackasses before, and I mean people who would never apologize for anything. You're okay by me. Melchoir 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Milton Sills

Hi, I was just wondering why you reshuffled the categories for the bio article on Milton Sills and placed the dates of birth and death last? I have perused a great many biographies on the site and notice that virtually all of them list in the categories birth year first, follwed by date of death. I placed both birth and death dates back to the first in the category, as I see that virtually all are listed this way. ExRat 07:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Many articles' categories are sorted alphabetically, but that doesn't mean they should be! The dates are the most useless categories on any biographical article, and I move them to the end whenever I see them. Melchoir 07:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Influation

Hi Melchoir. I have to admit, i am a newbie on here. I wanted to add a page on this site about a band I am good friends with, Influation. I was just wondering why you want it deleted already. I could really use some tips if you could help me, or at least let me know what I did wrong. Thanks. Kerlow999 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Kerlow999. As I'm sure you can imagine, lots of people would like to promote start-up bands on Wikipedia. The community has developed some guidelines for evaluating whether a band is notable enough to merit an encyclopedic article, and you can find them at WP:MUSIC. I thought that Influation failed those guidelines, not having released any albums, so I nominated it for deletion. If you know of a reason why the band is more notable than it seems, by all means tell us about it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influation and don't forget to improve the article! Melchoir 04:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Card Tricks Source

See my response on User_talk:Kleg

you deleted my article

Hey, I think you made a mistake by listing my article as a copyright violation. It was just a list of debate topics listed on a non-commerical website. There is already a partial list on the mainarticle for policy debate which has been approved as legitimate. That would seem like ample precedent for this to be considered fair use. Savidan 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've just learned that for websites other than commercial content providers, it is more appropriate to apply the copyvio tag than the db-copyvio tag. Had I done that, the article would not have been deleted so quickly, and I sincerely apologize for my error.

On the other hand, CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions was nothing more than a copy of this page. Wikipedia is not a backup service for external websites, and I'm sure that if I had chosen another means of nominating the article for deletion, the result would have been the same. If you would like to start an encyclopedic article on the topic of the CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions, perhaps even including a few examples, be my guest.

Finally, there are indeed partial lists on Policy debate, but they are already too long and unencyclopedic. The talk page doesn't address the lists, so they are hardly precedents. In fact, I'm going to head over there right now and have a look... Melchoir 08:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Venus of Dolní Věstonice

Do you really think the category Category:Ceramics is the right one here? That would be very suprising form me, unless I understand the term correctly. I'd removed the category but it can be discussed on Talk page. Pavel Vozenilek 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've explained at Talk:Venus of Dolní Věstonice. Melchoir 03:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Zilker references

First, thanks for the early morning (for me late night) complement. I wasn't sure what to do for references -- I basically just googled Andrew Zilker, assumed everything I read was true (still, when *did* he arrive in Austin?), and collaged things from there. Once upon a time (more than a decade ago) I could walk out my door and up a hilly, dirt path and be at the University of Texas' historical collection archive, but these days I'm just on the bus route to Harvard and I somehow doubt they'd have many a dead tree regarding this man. Kendrick7 10:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good Lord -- it's even called Harvard referencing on the citations page - now I'm embarrased! I could probably go back and source a few things to the Austin Chronicle or a Texas historical society website if that would help. I don't even know if I even believe the man came to town with 4 bits in his pocket, even if a dozen book-reportish sites mention that as fact. Heck, every reference to a Texan historical figure should have a BS warning at its outset if you ask me -- you know how these tall tales start :) Kendrick7 11:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

ESP

• Ectopic Shapeshifting Penance-propulsion is not a Mars Volta album. Why should it be placed under the Mars Volta albums category? Drange net 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I put it back under the Mars Volta albums category. We can continue the discussion under the talk page. Drange net 11:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I see that you are making the normal updates to my plastometer article and was wondering if you could find somebody to write about flow properties. I tried looking it up but I didn't get anything helpful. I'm just really bored right now and would like to find out this information. Please and thank you.

Well, I'm not sure what an article on flow properties ought to contain. I mean, there are already articles on density, compressibility, and viscosity... is that what you're thinking of? Melchoir 06:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yea it was but i was wondering if someone could kind of make a general statement of flow properties and how it all comes together, then provide links to density and melt ect.

Hmm... how about Fluid dynamics? I think that's pretty close to what you're asking for. I'll just go ahead and make Flow properties a redirect to there. Melchoir 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks Arizonabass 00:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm yea so I was about to write an article about inviscid flow when I found this: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Inviscid_flow  ????

Hmm, it looks like that site is GFDLed, so if you want to copy their article on inviscid flow here, that's fine. Melchoir 03:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh?

What are you talking about? is this some sort of scam to get my credit card number?

--Quarkington 08:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Only make links!

I love it. I was heading there to see if someone had noticed the improper placement of "only." I was cursed with a good English teacher who condemned me forever to notice that mistake and to notice when people say "The reason is because," instead of "The reason is that," or "Because." Kaisershatner

BAP System

I am not sure what I did wrong. I am describing the BAP system accurately, why are you deleting my changes?? User:Clint Ballard

See Talk:Draw (chess). Melchoir 14:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Melchoir can you leave off this guy please. If you read the BAP article you will realise that this points system is discussed by others on the internet [2]. Therefore I would respectfully ask that you allow him to edit articles and merely ensure that the NPOV principle isn't breached. --Chazz88 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also remember to assume good faith and don't bite the newbiews! --Chazz88 15:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, forum discussions are not sources, and I would love to let him edit articles except that all of his edits are self-promotion, and to remove the POV I wouldn't know where to begin. (Well, maybe I'm just lazy. Melchoir 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)) Yes, newbies might promote themselves in good faith without understanding why it is discouraged, but that's all the more reason to try to educate them. If he's willing to reform, I will owe both of you a sincere apology. Melchoir 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The point his that his article doesn't qualify for AFD. And the points system deserves a mention in the Draw (chess) board. --Chazz88 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no article that doesn't qualify for AfD. The whole point is that we have a mechanism for civil debate in which lots of users are invited to weigh in on whether or not an article belongs. There's nothing shameful about it. I didn't want to nominate the article because I thought it would scare him; for some reason I thought a personal discussion would be better. So much for not biting the newbies.

Yes, his system deserves a mention in appropriate articles, provided that those mentions don't overreach beyond published thought. Now that I've invested this much time, I may as well do it myself... Melchoir 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Melchoir 16:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

User page

User page Thanks for moving my self-page to my user page. You saved my article this way, so I'm really thankful that it gets to stay. But thanks anyway, despite the fact that you HATE people writing about themselves, so I thought that was kind of unexpected. -Shinobi101 19:57, Jan 2, 2006

No problem! That's what user pages are for, anyway. Melchoir 07:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on the current Math Collaboration of the Week

Hello Melchoir - since you listed mathematics as an interest in your user talk, I was hoping you could lend your expertise to the current Mathematics Collaboration of the Week: Multiple Comparisons. Obviously it's a interesting and important topic. We are also in the midst of a discussion as to the distinction between multiple comparisons and multiple testing. Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Let's get a math article up on the front page! Thanks for any help. Debivort 10:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Image sizes

hello melchoir. you reduced the size of many of my images. i intentially made them big since i think they are more beautiful that way. how would one go about changing the size restriction policy you are enforcing? thanks, bryanmcdonald

I wouldn't really say that I was enforcing a policy. The pages Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial do speak of preventing the images from overwhelming the text, but technically there's no hard limit on the size of a picture. It's just that if you look at the previous version of Team Racing, the pictures were larger than the text itself! If it's any consolation, you can still click on the thumbnails to see larger versions and download the full-size originals.

You might want to check out "Saffron" for an example of an article with lots of beautiful pictures; it's recently been made a featured article, so it represents what many Wikipedians think an article should look like. Melchoir 22:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your input. i think the saffron page is incredible. i think it would be far better with those lovely images taking up the majority of the page. while the text is enticing, the images are what moves me. i think the team racing page is boring with the small pictures. with the large ones, i think one is taken by the grace and beauty of the athletes. there are many emotional details from the large images that are lost in the tiny ones. i have never seen a photographers portfolio limit the size of the photo to 300px. i think the big photo team race page could interest many more people by the excitement of the photos as opposed to it's current state. while there are many practical and fiscal reasons for NOT publishing large pictures in encyclopedias, newspapers or magazines, those restrictions don't exist on a webpage. while 300 pixels is grand to compact something into a tidy and efficient corner, the trend of the internet is to go big (ref the breathtaking HD clips on http://www.apple.com/trailers/ ). i look forward to the coffee book edition of wikipedia...i think i'd fit in better there :-)

Well, creative differences aside, it looks like you're fitting in fine; already you've created more articles on interesting topics than I have, or will in the forseeable future! As for coffee books and trends, I think we're all looking forward to the day when our displays are 20,000 pixels across! Melchoir 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Westy22

Thanks for fixing my stupid mistake! :) - Haukur 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ya! Melchoir 23:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

REMAGINE

Good call. I'm starting to regret it myself. Vary just stepped in to the fight. I'm not sure whether they will stay long. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 23:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, never mind, I saw it was on AfD. Melchoir 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

algabraic proof of the pythagoream theorem

since you like math, please check out my proof and please tell me what i did wrong :-)

thanks for your feedback. i am fine with more indenting and a different placement. i was barely getting the hang of typsetting exponents and fractions thus i'm sure it can be improved. i also added some, what I think are, helpful examples of isomorphisms.

blow this mutha up

Ya know what'd feel really good? Taking the entire Berkeley article into Word, ripping out all the pathetic academic boosting and special interest crap, rewriting it to sooth the wounds and make it consistent, and slapping it back up. I think we oughtta do this b/c its spotty patchwork nature is really starting to get my grits. Gku 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Alishasaurus

Hi, I took your CSD tag off of Alishasaurus... I don't think that's nonsense, in that it does make sense and is coherent. It may be total BS, but it's not patent nonsense. I have put a request for verification up, but it could probably also go to WP:AFD... if you need help with that let me know. --W.marsh 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, I did it before I even saw this message. Melchoir 00:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Shit, you are fast!

I do a little bit on John Beck, and already it is edited!! Kd4ttc 03:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What can I say? I try. Melchoir 03:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL!! Kd4ttc 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please check the references and the veracity of the statements

Cave painting is the precursor of writing. The deciphering of the bird images as the ah sound -- that led to the letter a or aleph and the rhino as the g, the images of man and woman are important, along with geometric shapes, drawn 30,000 years ago, as early writing. Why did you remove this? Watt, Wen, and Hu are prehistorians. If you google their names along with key words such as archaeology, you shall find them, along with all the other authors, and their works. Well, if you do not want the entry, so be it; you seem to be in control. We tried our best to write an important article. Our expository paper will be appearing soon, and if you read such things, you will see it elsewhere. PreHistorian 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Aurelia

Thanks for adding those bits, I was unsure how to categorise stuff correctly (and I find I always forget something from a page!). If you've got any more to add, I'd be grateful -- couldn't remember of find on other sources the names they gave any of their animals or the scientists who did the actual research project -- though suspect it was Robert Haberle and Manoj Joshi of NASA's Ames Research Center. Any help confirming would be magic. RE: PreHistorian's comment above about birds and aleph... I always thought Aleph was to do with Phonecian for ox hence why ox and α look so similar... And once again, thank you for welcoming me in. User:Coricus 12:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Pi

I wanted to promote my business --BOBPARSONS 04:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Great. Melchoir 04:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Rydberg

you're welcome. i just thought something should have been said about that. r b-j 18:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

STUT articles

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Chin-Yen Kao, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Chang Hsin-Hsiung, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. For more information about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, take a look at our Five Pillars. Happy editing!

Are you User:Abcancer or what? Melchoir 18:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, no, I don't have any sockpuppets. I was just on Wikipedia at the time that Abcancer started adding dozens of articles. I was working on cleanup of these articles, and I split these bios off to seperate pages, from the initial page they were on. -- user:zanimum

Ah! Well, then, my apologies. I guess you need a bit more of the good ol' copyright paranoia, eh? Melchoir 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. Abcancer's talk page looks like the faculty asked him to post the info on Wikipedia. Perhaps we could actually just ask for them to explicitly tell us that they'll make it available as GFDL? -- user:zanimum

Didion and Kinkade

Hey. Good thinking on posting the Joan Didion quote about Kinkade. It was my blog you found it on, actually. I was just wondering how you stumbled across it. Kidicarus222 06:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Response about AoPS II

No definately not, I don't copy stuff but I did take problems from AoPS (and cited them) if that's not ok tell me. Thanks. TheHorse'sMouth 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I had written all of my articles offline a while ago, i'm just getting to putting them online. Is there anything particularily wrong that you see with my articles, everybody seems to find them not encyclopedic, but i;m sure that there is something wrong, i got alot of sighs TheHorse'sMouth 01:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)