User talk:Melchoir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

test

Contents

[edit] Congratulations

Your article 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · · was recently translated and promoted to FA class in es.wiki [1] Congratulations! Everyone who contributed to the article should be proud. (You might want to let the others know, I only knew of your involment with the article so I posted here.)--Cronholm144 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Melchoir 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

Melchoir, could you answer a question for me? If a published document on a medium other than wikipedia does not assert copyright, can it be transcluded into wikipedia as an article? Or does copyright exist automatically unless specifically waived?--Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's the second answer: copyright exists automatically upon distribution. Melchoir 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. It's alright, I have not done nor do I want to. I came across a discussion on this point and found that I was unsure of the answer.--Anthony.bradbury 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish problem (on commons)

Hello Merchior,
I would like to create an article for Commons:Image:Genyonemus_lineatus_mspc102.jpg and Commons:Image:Genyonemus_lineatus_mspc103.gif that you uploaded, but I am not sure of the species.
Is the species Commons:Genyonemus lineatus (as the files names suggest it) or Commons:Umbrina roncador (as the texte of the image sugest it)?
Cheers, Liné1 15:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the first one. It appears that I screwed up on the description text as I copied over images of several different species at the same time; sorry! Anyway, the article you're looking for is white croaker. Melchoir 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attack page deletion

Hi, I just noticed your deletion of Grailville, you beat me to it by about 3 seconds. :) What I wanted to remind you, though, is that for attack pages we need to delete the "content was:" section from the summary, which you didn't do for that deletion. (Just a friendly note.) By the way, you might find ^demon's CSD autoreason script useful for this kind of deletion: I'm using it and it's really useful. Nihiltres(t.l) 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I hadn't considered either of those before! Melchoir 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Nope, all hand-crafted with love Circeus 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Impressive. Melchoir 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

Updated DYK query On 18 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article evenness of zero, which you created or substantially expanded. 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 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Bot problem

Hi Melchoir, you were my initial greeting to Wikipedia, I thank you for your support and I've contributed a bit since then. I ran into a bot problem that I'm not sure how to deal with, so I thought to ask you, you being an administrator have a better idea than me.

This is the problem: On a page I created, someone changed a thumbnail image to a link, and that was OK with me. But then a bot tagged it for deletion, and I learned that even though it is linked it needs a non-orphan tag, and that fixed that problem. But recently this new bot, BetacommandBot keeps tagging the image for deletion despite the tag. I reported the problem on its page the first two times, and now it seems that it deletes the non-orphan tag as well. I don't think it is doing the right thing, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about how things are supposed to work to confidently turn it off. As a stop-gap measure I edited the linking article to include a thumbnail instead of a link. The image is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazrac.jpg and the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mek . If I'm wrong I apologize, but I don't understand the problem. What do you think? Sincerely, Ibjoe 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue turned out to be more convoluted than I would have expected. I've commented in depth at Image talk:Nazrac.jpg. Melchoir 06:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Melchoir! While I don't understand the Wikipedia policy that non-free-use images must be displayed in the article and not linked, I respect it. So the person who originally edited the article to change the image to a link instead of display created a violation. Anyway, issue is resolved. Ibjoe 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem! Melchoir 20:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anthemoessa

Hi! I created a page called Anthemoessa. It's about the island of the Sirens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthemoessa Would you mind editing it please? Thanks! Neptunekh (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been redirected to Sirenum scopuli. Let me know if you still need help with that! Melchoir (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with paste of picture

Hi Melchoir! Thank you for your kind letter. I would like to displace the picture (plus related text) on the FAST ION CONDUCTOR page. How can I load the picture? Is it possible that you made the template for it? (Despotuli 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. What picture? Melchoir 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

- It is picture and text from Fig.4 (http://www.nanometer.ru/2007/10/17/nanoionnie_superkondensatori_4879/PROP_FILE_files_2/Despotuli_Andreeva__Modern_Electronics_2007_rus_eng_translation_4.pdf (77.236.33.6 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

Oh, you're asking about including a picture from an outside source. If you created the diagram, that's great, and thanks for trying to contribute it here! There's still a possible problem: by publishing the figure, Современная Электроника might have gained copyright over it, in which case we might not be able to use it. Do you happen to know what the journal's copyright agreement was?
Either way, Wikipedia:Uploading images might help you out. Melchoir 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks for the useful notes. (Despotuli 06:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Help

Hi Melchoir! I need your help for combining the image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electronic_ionic_conductivity_diagram.JPG) and text for Fig 4 (http://www.nanometer.ru/2007/10/17/nanoionnie_superkondensatori_4879/PROP_FILE_files_2/Despotuli_Andreeva_Modern_Electronics_2007(ENG).pdf) on the page Fast ion conductor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_ion_conductor) (Despotuli (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

That should do it! Melchoir 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the cooperation! (Despotuli (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ethiopian961.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ethiopian961.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Vintei  talk  01:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Oh, thank you for the welcome!!!!! I will read those pages,

Oh, that pic is of me, my boyfriend is a photographer and he took one of me for his project, i wouldnt have named it "porn.jpg", but thats what he saved it under on my comp. Why? isnt this place not censored? Mcrazychick (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, this place isnt censored? Mcrazychick (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
...True, it isn't, but a title like that is just begging for unwanted attention and abuse. It also makes we wonder whether it really is of you, since it is hard to imagine why you (or he) would have named it that in the first place, much less exposed it on the Internet.
If you want to avoid explaining the picture a million times, you should probably request the present file to be deleted, and re-upload it with a more descriptive title. Preferably you could find a version of the file that still has the camera's original metadata attached. I'm not particularly eager to pursue the matter, but I'm not the only admin around here. Melchoir (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it is me. And yea i agree that the title is bad....are you able to delete it for me?Mcrazychick (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure! Melchoir (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
well i fixed the name of the pic. Hope that is better. i will see if my b/f has the original pic still on the memory card so we can attack that camera data you were talking about. Mcrazychick (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Melchoir (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You said they are

But if the teacher spreads false information, they are obviously not. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Teachers are evaluated before they teach. They must pass tests you have never heard of. In many states they must complete degree programs in education. You should do some research on teaching credential requirements in your community; I guarantee you will learn something. Melchoir (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I think you will learn something if you research those things. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Um... yes, I suppose I will? Melchoir (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do you have a PhD in theoretical physics? If not, shut up and wait for an expert to debate.

Do you have a PhD in theoretical physics? If not, shut up and wait for an expert to debate. Vince

Wikipedia is not a forum for debate. Melchoir (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I used the wrong word "debate". In discussing this article, do you have any proof that light has either a magnetic or electric field, which justifies leaving the article as it is? Vince Bvcrist (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Physical proof is irrelevant. Open any textbook on electrodynamics or optics and you will read that light is composed of waves in the electromagnetic field. According to the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, the fact that this theory is so widely attested is more important than whether or not it is true, correct, or sufficiently proven. Melchoir (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Can thispage be deleted

A tag has been placed on Can thispage be deleted, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. STORMTRACKER 94 21:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that was a user talk page that got moved, but it's not a big deal. Melchoir (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation templates

Lens (optics) isn't ambiguous, but lens is. The disambiguation templates are intended to be used on pages where ambiguous terms are distinguished by parentheses, to link back to the common disambiguation page. The only error at Lens (optics) was that it should have been the generic "otheruses" template, since the context was clear. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more information on disambiguation.--Srleffler (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am already familiar with disambiguation. I do not agree that a template is necessary or helpful at Lens (optics), and my reasoning is pretty well summed up by WP:NAMB. Please let me know if you disagree with that guideline, and why. Melchoir (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Sorry.--Srleffler (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, no problem! Melchoir (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion

At Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Nondimensionalized.2C_SI.2C_and_CGI_comparison and Talk:Magnetic_monopole#Emphasis_here_is_to_the_symmetry.21 -- 12 February 2008.

[edit] Template:Infobox Scotland county

I note you have worked on this infbox template. The template appears to me to be almost designed to produce nonsensical results. See also Talk:County of Nairn. Laurel Bush (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Not really, but I see you've already contacted the principal editors. Melchoir (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations on your DYK!

Updated DYK query On 25 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Singly and doubly even, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations and keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Measurement Causes Collapse

You you read this article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

Lordvolton (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:AdditionNombryng.svg

A tag has been placed on Image:AdditionNombryng.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I'll do it myself! Melchoir (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:THANKS

Hello, I came across your proposal for a lightweight thanking mechanism while doing some research for a Wikipedia-namespace page on the available methods to express thanks to another user. Too bad people weren't enthusiastic for your proposal, though as a software developer myself I sympathize with the objections raised over the technical challenges.

Anyways, the article I wrote is shortcutted via WP:THANKS, I thought you might be interested in some input. (Most of the methods I list are ones that were mentioned in response to your proposal, btw.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 14:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An interesting page! I don't really think I have anything to add. But I'm glad to see that some good came of my little topic! Melchoir (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bad noinclude.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:Bad noinclude.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation requested.

Regarding this -- I do not see how my wording is problematic, though I do think the current wording is somewhat poorly qualified. Would you explain your reversion? — xDanielx T/C\R 23:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure! The present wording was kind of designed by committee, and as a result nobody thinks it's perfect. But I'll defend it with my own understanding:
  • There are three categories being discussed: written expressions, decimal expansions, and real numbers.
    • A written expression is a sequence of characters, such as "0.999...", "0.99999...", "0.9r", "0.(9)", "point nine repeating", etc.
    • A decimal expansion is a sequence of integers, which except for the zeroth are conventionally restricted to fall in the range between 0 and 9. Examples include the sequence that starts with 0 and has 9 in every other place, and the sequence that starts with 1 and has 0 in every other place.
    • A real number is... well, you don't need me to provide a definition, but there are several. 1 is a real number.
  • A decimal expansion may be "written as" several expressions. This transaction is the meaning of "In mathematics, the recurring decimal 0.999…, which is also written as..."
    • Your text, "the expression 0.999…, which is also written as...", implies that there are multiple ways to write the same expression, which doesn't make sense. At best you're creating yet another layer of indirection. Two is enough!
  • A real number, in turn, may be represented by several decimal expansions. This transaction is the meaning of "...denotes a real number equal to 1.".
    • Your expression, "...denotes a decimal expansion equal to 1..." starts out fine, in that it says that an expression denotes a decimal expansion. However, "decimal expansion equal to 1" implies an equality between two different things: a sequence of integers and a real number, which doesn't make sense. Two things are equal only if they are logically, identically, exactly the same thing.
  • For the same reason, "equal to 1 in the real number system" doesn't make sense. Two well-defined mathematical objects are either equal or not; there is no need to qualify with a number system.
Now, to be fair, I think that there are also problems with the current wording:
  • The above distinctions are glossed over in a vague and possibly awkward manner. I think this is a necessary evil. We have to strike a balance between common language and the naked truth.
  • The construction "0.999... [...] denotes a real number equal to 1" makes me cringe. Strictly speaking, it's equivalent to say "0.999... [...] denotes 1". This is another necessary evil. We don't want readers to think that "0.999... = 1" is merely a convention, rather than a result of the general pattern by which a decimal expansion represents a real number. A priori, 0.999... represents an unknown real number; some analysis must be done before concluding that the real number in question is, in fact, 1.
Whew! Melchoir (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I take your point at least with regard to the problematic "equivalent expressions" rhetoric. I'm relieved to see I'm not the only one who finds the wording slightly imprecise, but I'll lay off it for now. Thanks for the thorough explanation. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course, thanks for understanding! Melchoir (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short break

I'll be away from computers for a week or so, if anyone's curious. Melchoir (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Euler's identity image

No, it plots all the partial sums, but they are cumulative, so the second point is not just the second fraction from each part, but the previous parts added on too.Iloveeuler (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but there's no particular reason to do it that way. From the point of view of the theory of series summation, it makes much more sense to consider each power of pi in sequence, rather than to decide to group together the 0th term with the 1st, the 2nd with the 3rd, and so on. Melchoir (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)