User talk:Melchoir/Archive7

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.

Possible block candidate

Melchoir, would you please look at recent contributions and talk page dialogue relating to User:Guitarpunk101?

he has had a number of warnings, which he appears to have ignored. I did post at WP:AIV, but the post vanished and nothing happened, so perhaps my judgement is faulty. But I would like a second opinion.--Anthony.bradbury 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. Redundant request now.--Anthony.bradbury 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:User:I Went to Japan and Got a Hat

I don't understand. How can it not be considered a vandalism-only account? The move of Donkey Kong Country to Super Donkey Kong and subsequent edits cannot be considered a legitimate dispute, but a deliberate (albeit sneaky) attempt to introduce factual errors, especially in light of the user's other contributions. I would appreciate an explanation, if only for my own benefit. Dancter 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reviewed the edits, and it seemed to be a Japanese/English version priority dispute. The user's other edits seem to be a mixture of silly vandalism and genuine participation. He (I assume) was never encouraged to explain himself, and the {{bv}} template makes gentle guidance almost impossible.

Anyway, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you use the full spectrum of warning templates, since they're more helpful and they give us admins more options. Melchoir 00:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for encouraging a first-time author! LSm

Melchoir, thank you very much for the encouragement on my LSm article. As you have guessed, this is my first attempt at a Wikipedia article, and welcome ANY constructive advice. I actually did check out the Wikipedia sites that you mentioned, and even printed a few pages out. I also looked at the articles on Histone and Myosin as examples/templates. At this point, my article is still an early work in progress, but I am taking my time to write an accurate, concise, and understandable article, which takes a lot of thought to do all three at the same time. Bob Plaag 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Boy, it sure does take time, doesn't it? Especially since we're not getting paid to sit down and concentrate!

I don't think I have any specific constructive advice. I could say that the "Sm proteins, snRNPs, the spliceosome, and splicing messenger RNA" section needs at least one citation, but that would be a little too nitpicky for a work in progress. It looks like you have a plan for the article, so go at your own pace, and I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Melchoir 00:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, it looks as if I read your mind, and have been adding references. I am maybe 80% done, with Function and Evolution sections still to go, plus some figures. Speaking of figures, I finally got up the courage to create and add one. Could you do me a favor and see if I did this right, especially the copyright issues and such? If anything, I may have overkilled the sourcing comments, but that is probably better than not being specific enough. Or did I? I played around with the sizing, and the layout does seem to be dependent on my Explorer window size, but it seems okay with what I am using. It is still a work in progress, but I am getting closer. Bob Plaag 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the sourcing looks fine! It's not just useful for copyright issues; long source comments help future generations of editors produce similar work and, if it comes to that, verify that the image is what it claims to be.

Eventually, when you do think the article is "done", you might like to consider nominating it for Wikipedia:Peer review. Melchoir 01:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the RAPID feedback! I will submit it for Wikipedia:Peer review when I feel that it is 'done', which should be relatively soon. I also plan to have my colleague review it for content and clarity.Bob Plaag 03:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, well, I feel that I am 'done' with my LSm article, and will be submitting it to Wikipedia:Peer review today. I may have 'over-worked' it, and it reads almost like a professional grade review article on LSm, (with a length warning of 35kb). But maybe that is okay. If not, I am sure someone will tell me. My colleage Gary Z (http://www.path.sunysb.edu/gz/) is reviewing it for content and will be sending me his edits 'this weekend'. He doesn't want to edit it himself, so with his permission, I plan to paste his suggestions into my dicussion page. When I wrote this article, the model in my mind was that Wikipedia would have a series of articles, one for each protein family/fold. Good existing examples (in my mind) include Histone, Myosin and Globin fold. Bob Plaag 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with professional grade in my book! It can be a challenge to make sure that at least the first part of a technical article is accessible to the public, but I do try to include an encyclopedic level of detail in my articles. It's great to hear that you're envisioning a whole series of articles; they'll be very welcome! Melchoir 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, I am (very) slowly working my way down the list of peer review suggestions. Most recently, I expanded my Lead to three paragraphs to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I have a couple of questions. I currently have no references in the Lead, but everything in the Lead is treated more fully later in the article where it IS referenced. Is this okay with Wikipedia? If not, how can I make two footnotes that refer to the same reference? (Which otherwise would increase the size of the References section for no good reason.) For example, let say I want to use reference 3 in two places, without repeating the citation? My second question is the matter of repetition. A number of concepts are mentioned more than once, each time with more detail. Is this okay? It seems to be reasonable in my mind as the reader can more easily choose how deep he/she wants to go. Are there guidelines for this? As far as a whole series of articles, this is just a vision. I am not sure that I have the time to dedicate to this. Plus, I am a bit out of my field. I am actually a physicist working as a postdoc for a molecular biologist. I am comfortable about writing about our own research, but creating such a series would be more appropriate for a molecular biologist. Bob Plaag 03:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer that lead sections don't include citations, and I think I'm in the majority with this attitude. The reasoning is just as you said: the information should be expanded upon in the body anyway, where it will be referenced.

For using a reference multiple times, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php#Multiple_uses_of_the_same_footnote. There's also the option of separating footnotes from full bibliographic references, as in 0.999....

Yeah, I'd say it's okay to repeat concepts in progressively greater detail, but only if there's a clear plan to the article. As a reader, I prefer it to be obvious what I'm reading at all times; if there's a surprise reading comprehension quiz, I shouldn't have to think hard about what was the purpose of paragraphs 8-10. For Wikipedia, a good hierarchical section structure will usually keep you safe. Melchoir 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! Bob Plaag 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User page

Melchoir, I have no particular problem with pornography, given that it is concensual and not pedophilic. What is our view of it's existence on user pages? I refer you to User:Mighty Zeus. Now while bondage is not really my particular interest, I can see that these photos are not, perhaps, actively offensive, though I would bet that a feminist would not agree. What is the position in Wikipedia?--Anthony.bradbury 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not good that the user has spent more time on his user page than on the encyclopedia. He shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a free webspace provider. I see that he's tried to start up an article on his school, though, so his participation here isn't completely useless.

I guess I'm stalling because I don't know whether pornography is or should be allowed on user pages. Wikipedia:User page doesn't really cover it, and I haven't thought about it before. I would suggest waiting to see if Mr. Zeus intends to stay with us and become a member of the community before taking any action. And the action I would take would be to suggest to him to convert the image insertions to non-displaying links or to move them to a subpage of his user page. Melchoir 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel the need to make a fuss; I am a senior citizen and past being disturbed, even by images which do not accord with my personal inclinations. But it just might be the thin end of a wedge. Would it be seen as intrusive to take it to the Village Pump, do you think?--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Village Pump would be fine. If you're worried about being intrusive, you could always phrase a question in general terms without mentioning the user. Melchoir 23:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha.--Anthony.bradbury 00:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Polar coordinate system FAC

Hi Melchoir. You may want to check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polar coordinate system again; I've addressed many of the concerns, and it would be great to know if the article now meets your standards for FA. Thanks! —Mets501 (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Melchoir 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Melchoir, I have yet another vandal on my back. It is after 2 am here, and I really have to go to bed. Could you keep an unusually close watch on my pages for the next couple of hours?--Anthony.bradbury 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, er… looks like it's okay. Melchoir 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Anthony.bradbury 15:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Zorpia

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zorpia, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorpia. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Melchoir 03:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks Melchoir. I love Wikipedia, it's been my browser homepage for several years, so it's high time I did some work. I'll definitely be hanging around for some time. Thanks also for the links, I've read some of them, but will definitely reread them, and hopefully avert catastrophic changes. JonathanMurphy 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure; let me know if I can otherwise help! Melchoir 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I passed!

Hey Melchoir, I'm just sending you a quick note to let you know I passed my Algebra qualifying examination! Thanks for your help in those waning days, it really put my mind at ease. I'm flying high now! –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was wondering if I ought to ask you about that, but I didn't know how long your school would take. Congrats! Melchoir 20:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They took their time, because they like to release all the results at the same time and because other quals were being given a week after mine. Now to begin the preparation for the Analysis qualifier... –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Format

Melchoir, I have really odd problem. If you look at my talk page, you will see that all the titles, and indeed the texts have, in the lower have of the page changed to centre-indent. I do not know why, or how. Do you know how to change to left-indent?--Anthony.bradbury 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it was a bug that someone recently introduced in a template, and I fixed it: [1]. Melchoir 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal

Melchoir, it is not easy, but I will survive. Thank you for your concern. If you look at my talk page you will see how many friends I have that I didn't know I had.--Anthony.bradbury 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

prod v. speedy

I just removed the prod tag you placed on Profilespaces. I replaced with a {{db-spam}} tag. I would suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion before prod'ing articles. --Tainter 21:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm very familiar. Melchoir 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I did place the tag because it would not have been deleted without an overly long drawn out deletion process. --Tainter 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably. It can be a fine line between asserting notability or not, so I tend to exercise caution before pulling the trigger, especially when no one else has weighed in on an article. Melchoir 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Jim Greiner page is written by Jim Greiner and appears to be simple self promotion. Shouldn't it be removed? Freddythehat 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the third paragraph asserts a fair amount of notability. Presumably, if someone really wanted to look up the references that talk about Greiner, they could write a balanced article on him. Even though the current article violates various content policies, it has the potential to meet them, and in that case it's safest not to delete the article. Melchoir 20:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

How does one go about reinstating a category?

Hi, Melchoir. You welcomed me to Wikipedia this past November and it was much appreciated. I come now with a question: a category that I and some others find useful was recently deleted. I have been drafting an article which makes the case for the subject being a legitimate area of interest, and was wondering how to proceed. Should I just publish the article when ready, reinstate the category, and explain what I have done on the discussion page of the category and/or the article? Or is there a more elaborate procedure involved? I couldn't find anything in the help material on categories about reinstating previously deleted categories, and I don't want to step on any toes. If you could point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. Thanks! scribblingwoman 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to give advice without knowing the circumstances… If the category was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, then it would probably be best to see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy and try Wikipedia:Deletion review. Melchoir 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. Sorry, I guess my message does sound cryptic. I wanted to ask about procedures and not get bogged down in specifics, but I think I just ended up being confusing. The category that was deleted was "women writers": the discussion is here. I and some other editors who would have spoken against the idea were unaware of the proposal until the removal of the category started to show up in our watchlists. As per the guidelines on categories involving gender, race, or sexuality, I am drafting an article which outlines, briefly, the development of "women's literature" as a legitimate and widespread category used by literary scholars. The article should be ready to go in a few days or so, but I wasn't sure how to proceed after that. The links you gave me are useful -- thanks! -- though they pertain more to articles than categories. One good suggestion is to approach the administrator who made the original call and nicely ask them to reconsider; I should probably try that, first. But from what I can tell, there isn't a formal review process to consider reinstating categories, unless I am missing something? scribblingwoman 02:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You could certainly ask Radiant! to revisit the CfD, but it looks to have settled pretty firmly on delete.

I wonder if the category you'd like to create might actually be Category:Writers of women's literature? This would be a narrower category than Category:Women writers and therefore less controversial in its application. It could be a natural subcategory of Category:Writers by genre, just as Category:Feminist writers belongs under Category:Writers by outlook and Category:Women writers belongs under Category:Writers by personal characteristic. Of course, this idea relies upon enforcing a distinction between women's literature and feminist literature, which will not be easy given that we currently have an article on neither. So I do suggest focusing on the articles for now and applying them later. Melchoir 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quick response. I will give some thought to creating a new category, though "women's literature" is a minefield, whereas "women writers" seems pretty straightforward. Oh well, I will get on with the article and take it from there. Thanks for your suggestions! scribblingwoman 03:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Aaron Moore Jr.

As it was autobiographical I believe he should at be given the respect of a few minutes to respond to the claims of not being notable. Look, I know its the extra step, but it wasn't spam and I while I don't believe that he might have the ability to give himself the sources to maintain his nobility he should have been given the chance to address this. MrMacMan 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, the guy's 19 years old and even after he writes multiple paragraphs about himself, there's nothing of interest. He got a detailed explanation of the problem and what he might do about it on his talk page. In the meanwhile, we skip to the inevitable conclusion. Melchoir 06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that he wasn't given a whole lot of time between the notice and deletion. As I said, he probably couldn't produce anything of interest, but that doesn't mean when I try to put the holdon tag on a page it should be deleted as swiftly as was (i believe) done. I'm not trying to nitpick, so it it seems petty sorry for harping on the point. MrMacMan 20:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jack Zigler" Warnings

Melchoir, would you please review the Jack Zigler page? There has been an extensive amount of overhauling to it in the last few hours, and I think it passes muster under several different tests:

1. Search Engine Test -- just type in his name in Google to see what I mean! 2. The Professor Test 3. Verifiability 4. User comments in the discussion session

Done. Melchoir 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

Melchoir, I am going to be away for a couple of weeks. I don't know if my page is still on your watchlist, but I would be grateful if you could take an occasional look to keep it reasonably vandal-free. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 11:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'm still watching your page. Looks clean so far! Melchoir 01:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 18 February, 2007, a fact from the article Fluidized bed reactor, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Did you know? was updated. On 18 February, 2007, a fact from the article Ice-minus bacteria, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + · · ·, was selected for DYK!

On February 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + · · ·, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and recommendation!

Dear Melchoir:

Thank you for recommending my article, fluidized bed reactor, for the DYK section. As a new user to Wikipedia, it was pretty exciting to see that my article was on the main page. Also thanks for the edits you made and the help you offered. If you have any other suggestions for the article or would know of anyone who might also be interested in contributing, please let me know as I would love comments. Again, thanks! Hughesy127 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! I'm glad to hear that my efforts fishing around new articles are paying off. Melchoir 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Er?

Regarding IceyodE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), just how many articles did he create? I only tagged one article of his, but you blocked him as vandalism only? Logical2u_{Review me!} 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out [2]. Melchoir 23:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Righto, serves me for not checking the logs. (I figured a dangerous vandal page creator would be a bit more original with his names...) Logical2u_{Review me!} 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

! + 2 + 3 + 4 …

Hi, Melchoir!

I always enjoy reading your articles about divergent series. They're a refreshing change of pace.

I do have a question about this article. I notice that you added a "cite" tag. Then, in the very next section, you include a direct quote from Ramanujan, which appears to provide the citation. "My theory" and "Ramanujan summation" ought to be the same thing, right? Oh – there's also a somewhat confusing note (apparently an edit summary?) in the "Notes" section. And I have a little trouble finding the article when I search for it from say the main page. I can construct a link to it, and I can even open that link in a new tab. But if I cut and paste the link to a new window, Wikipedia can't find the page. And if I enter a string in Google like ["1 + 2 + 3 + 4" Ramanujan] in Google it can't find your article either.

I guess I'll try some simple search strings in Wikipedia's search engine, and build a couple of redirect pages for this article. I like your titles, but they do challenge the search engines.

Anyway, it seems that you may not be finished with the article yet, so I thought I'd bring this up on your talk page instead of somewhere else. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! It's great to hear that you appreciate the effort.

About the cite tag: I think that the statement "The Ramanujan sum of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · is −¹⁄₁₂" means more than simply "Ramanujan thought that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · is −¹⁄₁₂". I think it means that there exists a well-defined summability method called Ramanujan summation that may be applied to any infinite series; that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · is summable by this method; and its sum is -1/12 in that way. The problem is that I've never yet seen a definition of such a general method, nor a source that describes how it applies to this series. Even the citation to Delabaere given at Ramanujan summation doesn't cover it. If anything, that paper seems to suggest that Ramanujan summation subtracts out the zeta function's pole at z=1, so the values it returns for the series that define the zeta function should be a little off from the zeta function itself.

Elsewhere on the Internets, there is confusion over how 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · is systematically summed. I was hoping that a Wikipedia article on the series could eventually explain all. For now, I don't have the answers, so I make do with a cite tag.

Good work with the redirects! Unfortunately, I have yet to meet an Internet search engine that can search for mathematical expressions like "1 + 2 + 3 + 4". If you Google that phrase, not only do you not find this article, you don't find anything remotely relevant. This is a huge barrier to doing research, so if you ever find a solution, please let me know!

It's true that I intend to come back to the article. Maybe after I hit the library and consult Hardy… Melchoir 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and that "Notes" thing is there because I've seen some concern elsewhere over whether it's appropriate to include links in quotations. Melchoir 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ramanujan summation" ought to be the name of a well-defined method. Unfortunately, I think it really refers to a method that R. had in his mind and never adequately communicated to anyone else. He saw these things in visions, or heard them from a goddess, or something. Maybe someone will someday figure out what "Ramanujan summation" really ought to be, in a rigorous sense, but for now I think it just means "The way R. added things up."

Part of the problem with search engines is that most of them want to treat "+" as a logical and operator, so searching for "1+2+3" searches for "1" and "2" and "3". I tried using the escape character (which is supposed to be an extra "+" sign on Google) like this – "1 ++ 2 ++ 3 ++ 4" – but no soap. DavidCBryant 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hardy seems to make a definition, although I'll have to reread it to see where it begins and what it involves. If I come to an understanding, I'll try to expand the relevant article… Melchoir 07:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my stupid mistake

I don't know what was going on in my head last night. It was late, and my mind was not working properly. Lucky someone was on top of things. Really, there was no need to inform me of the mistake. On the whole, I'm not a very good speller, and when I rush, that's when mistakes are born. (I always rush!) Anyway, I just wanted to thank you for correcting my stupid mistake. (And by the way, it looks like your doing a really good job finding sources and fixing up the alpine snowbell article;thanks alot for that) Anonymous Dissident 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome! Melchoir 07:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 2 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 07:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sops and frumenty for all!

At long last, the long-overdue nomination of medieval cuisine as an FAC is under way. You are invited to grab your fill of potage, quince pie, a subtlety worthy of a pope, and all the beer you can drink! Oh, and don't forget to make a few comments while you're digging in...

Peter ^Isotalo 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the advice, which is appreciated. I've been at the centre of a few disputes concerning inline citations of late, some which have been rather volatile and nasty from me and the other people involved. That's why I'm not keen for people to single me out in other FARs - I wish to avoid the trouble. LuciferMorgan 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can sympathize with that. If only people had more practice and felt more comfortable in doing research than in arguing on the Internet, we might actually get things done instead of the constant "this needs attribution" / "no it doesn't". Melchoir 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not a maths man, so would end up probably asking for more citations as I don't understand most of it. It's been improved though, so congratulations for that. I wouldn't worry about my vote anyway - looking at the FARC it's a lone one, so won't count. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd still like to know where in particular you would look for more citations. Actually adding more isn't the only possible response. For example, it's possible that one of the footnotes simply needs to be altered to read "this source also covers X" without directly adding a footnote at X. So is there an X that stands out for you? Melchoir 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Infinite monkey theorem

Thanks for the offer. However, I looked at that talk page and it seems very based on mathematics. I think I would look like a fool if I tried to enter anything there! I'm just the copy editor type. I was making suggestions from a copy edit point of view. Thanks anyway. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's the danger of looking like a fool if you challenge the mathematics. Organizational suggestions couldn't hurt, though. The worst that happens is no one likes your suggestion, but they're forced to think about why, and then there's a record of why the page is arranged as it is. Well, whatever you prefer. Melchoir 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit counters

Hi there; Melchoir, while obsession with edit counts, in or out of Rfa context, is fairly generally agreed to be a bad thing, there are occasions when acvquiring the data can be useful. I have discovered that there are marked discrepancies in the results which different counters produce; specifically, and using my own contributions, Kate's Tool (when it works) produces a total count about 500 less than Interiot's Tool. This is a significant difference. Do you have any views as to which counter is the most accurate? Or least inaccurate?. Best wishes.--Anthony.bradbury 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know that Kate's tool still works, even intermittently! The only one I've used lately is Interiot's tool. If I recall correctly, Kate's tool accesses a possibly-out-of-date statistic, while Interiot's tool literally looks through your contributions page when you make a request. So it seems reasonable that Interiot's would report higher, and I assume that it's more accurate. Melchoir 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I just ran a test by accessing Interiot before and after writing the above reply, and sure enough, my total edit count and my count for this talk page both increased by 1. I wonder how I should spend edit #20,000? It's coming up… Melchoir 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I did find Kate working although, as you say, usually she doesn't. I did know your approximate edit count (gasp!). I will get there some time this year, I suspect.--Anthony.bradbury 12:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Zorpia.com

Wikipedia has deleted Zorpia from their database. Wikipedia claims dat zorpia is some kinda drug related spam site which have got connections with pharmaceuticals. wikipedia even doubts the number of members zorpia houses. i have been a member of Zorpia.com since Oct 15, 2006 and they have really got these many members and its a genuine social networking website. how can u believe this? by joining zorpia and seeing it for ur self. All we know the reasons zorpia was got deleted off wikipedias database was due to lack of verifiable sources to assert its notability. i have got some sources for you and so please go through these sources and please make the other admins notifiable of these sources as well. Here are some sources that proves the notability of Zorpia:

USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2004-02-29-photoshare_x.htm

TechAddress: http://techaddress.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/interview-with-jeffrey-ng-ceo-from-zorpia/

DMasia: http://www.digitalmediaasia.com/default.asp?ArticleID=19073 (Canada's largest independent record label would not work with a fake drug site!)

Pulse 2: http://pulse2.com/category/nettwerk-music-group/ (Note quotes from Nettwerk Records Marketing Director)

Please look into this matter and give Zorpia.com its honour and glory back. I absolutely love zorpia and i know how lovely this site is.

-Abhishek aka Aby aka Real eyes.

Don't worry about me; the deletion review should cover this matter well enough. Melchoir 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a user of zorpia. I have used Zorpia for two years. May be you can help us reinstate zorpia by casting a positive vote for us at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review ?

Image:AdditionTable.svg

What do the colors represent in this image? -Indolences 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a brief description in the caption at Addition. Melchoir 00:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I ask because I have been recreating many of the SVGs you created for that article (and if you want any more just ask, as long as they are not too complicated) writing the images by hand, as opposed to Illustrator/Inkscape/etc. For example: Image:PlusCM128.svg the original size: 20,591 bytes. new size: 326 bytes. :) -Indolences 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Melchoir 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My most extensive hand made svg to date: Image:Addition Table.svg are the colors right?

your colors are prettier though. -Indolences 15:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the colors do seem a little harder to follow in yours. You could try opening my version in a vector editor to see what the colors and transparency values are, and do something similar… Melchoir 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixt. -Indolences 21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot better! One thing, though: don't you think it's easier to read with a white background? Melchoir 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What is easier to read? What background? -Indolences 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Your version has a gray background everywhere, including where my version is white (or transparent, I can't remember which). Melchoir 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in my browser (ie6) it shows up as grey, so i made it grey. It is now white. :) -Indolences 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Just one other thing… I think a thicker border is useful between different parts of the table than between adjacent cells. (I hope you don't think I'm pretentious by encouraging you to make your version look more like mine!) Melchoir 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty good at this svg stuff for only learning it a week ago. How does it look now? -Indolences 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Um… would it be possible to right-justify the numbers so that the ones digits line up, and to tone down the borders between the cells in the top row and the left column? Melchoir 23:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved them over a bit. The single digits still do not line up EXACTLY with the 1s place of the double digits, but it's pretty darn close. -Indolences 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

…Yeah… but now, the two-digit numbers look crowded with the left sides of their cells… Melchoir 19:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Math expressions as article titles

I saw the responses... what would you like me to say? Robert K S 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you ask…! I'd like you to either explain that you still think your objection can be addressed; or if you agree that it can't, to strike it out. Melchoir 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

…Never mind! The FAC is closed. Melchoir 23:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it because....

• A merge was suggested and information deemed necessary was moved.
• The title of this article is infinitely unlikely to be typed such that it is ever found.
• The content of the article is non important as a significant mathematical formula, it is instead, just a quirk.
• Furthermore, if the information does need to be retained the it should be retained at the source of the related mathematician.

So 1/2 − 1/4 + 1/8 − 1/16 + · · ·

should be merged, or deleted. Meissmart 23:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The "necessary" information you moved was the most boring part of the article: the sum of the series, but not its applications or connections to other series. The title of the article does not need to be easily typeable to be useful; 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·, for example, just got made a Featured Article. It is still visible in Category:Mathematical series, and it can be linked to from other articles. The content of the article isn't very important, but it is important enough to be used in the references at the end of the article, so it supports an encyclopedia entry. And it is not customary to file all mathematical information with its discoverer, for many reasons. Melchoir 23:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandal score

Do I get a prize for achieving 50 vandalisms on my user page?--Anthony.bradbury 10:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you're joking, but that's an interesting idea: perhaps there should be a centralized scoreboard? Melchoir 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, if there were one I have seen occasional users with over 100 vandalisms scored. But I do think that, of those editors who are sad enough to keep count, I am in the top 20 or so.--Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Broccoli

Melchoir, I do not know if this is possible or not. A few days ago, User:Hambrew (now indef blocked) vandalised my userpage, adding a comment about my late wife and broccoli. The vandalism was reverted by a friend before I saw it, but of course it remains as a line in the edit history. Is there any way of erasing this line without altering my userpage? Because it's upsetting when I see it.--Anthony.bradbury 11:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was able to delete that revision, so it doesn't show up on the history page. It's still on the database, and admins can access it by the Special:Undelete tool. There exists a stronger measure, Wikipedia:Oversight, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed. Melchoir 19:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Having it available for admin inspection is obviously not a problem; you will appreciate that the death of my wife was unexpected, and deeply upsetting, and seeing stupid comments about it in my userpage history does not help me to get over it. Thank you again.--Anthony.bradbury 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

PS is that something that I could have done had I been an admin? By the way, I got edit-reviewed by User:Gwernol.--Anthony.bradbury 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't tried it before, but all you need is the ability to delete pages. I'm not familiar with edit review; was there some kind of outcome? Melchoir 05:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He was very happy with my history, and offered to nominate me for my next RfA. But has not done so as yet - I think he may on partial wikibreak.--Anthony.bradbury 13:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me know when your RfA goes live! I may be out of touch later this week, but I'll get in a support vote before it closes. Melchoir 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikisharki

Melchoir,

I stumbled upon a wikipedia page, last edited by yourself it seems: Power_of_two. Please do not take offense, but I think it needs to be rewritten, at least the introduction part, before table of contents. I've never created or edited any content on WikiPedia before, but reading the first few paragraphs of this particular entry made me want to change it.

Not only is the content a tad childish, it is also misleading, and in a few points actually incorrect.

I'd like to edit, or at least contribute to this particular article, and actually several other entries linked from it as well. Having no WikiPedia editor experience, I humbly request permission, and guidance in making these changes.

Let me know if you need any details, or have any questions about my request.

Cheers,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikisharki

Well, you don't need anyone's permission, although guidance couldn't hurt… I'm not sure what changes you have in mind, so why don't you be bold and make them? Melchoir 06:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic monopole

I sent my paper to a couple of professors in Harvard in June 2006, but they didn't answer me. you can see that Yevgen Kats proposed merging this article with dirac monopole in 2 August 2006.

Some people in Harvard are trying to preseve the old but wrong vector potential. Merging two articles is the result of this emergency condition. Yevgen Kats is only a cover up for taking action. However they will lose in the long term.

If you like you can send me email at: [email removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.24.65 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the long term you can get your paper published? Melchoir 17:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi,

Thanks for straightening out my user page.

Could you have a look at the Speed of light article and the discussion? The guy who is so angry actually has a point in that the formula in the article will calculate an incorrect answer if one uses it blindly. He originally changed both plus signs to minus signs, claiming that the formula was obviously wrong since if you apply it directly to the implied word problem in the text it calculates a 0 for the closing speed of two spaceships that are moving toward each other. Explaining why the signs change for the situation given would involve walking readers through "How would you figure the guys' speeds out if you all were walking up and down the same street" situations, and that approach would not be appropriate to the article. Sooner or later somebody will do the math again and come out with another zero, so it would be good to find some way to avoid that eventuality. I added a line or two to the article to try to clear things up, but I guess there are probably better ways to explain it. Anyway, the angry man is going to keep making trouble unless somebody can explain to him that neither the original writer nor I happens to be entirely crazy. P0M 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got an even better solution… Melchoir 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

…well, I was going to gut the section, but the article organization is rather inflexible, so I'll just edit it down a bit. Melchoir 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be interested in helping to improve the following articles?

• 1/2 − 1/4 + 1/8 − 1/16 + · · ·
• 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + · · ·

I started them, and they've already been attacked by deletionists and prodders. I've seen you have already taken an interest in them, so I was wondering if you would like to collaborate with me and improve the articles so much that the next person who tries to delete them is filled with shame. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, you might like to trim back your attitude a little… but yes, I'll try to improve the articles. They'll ultimately need to be fleshed out, but the important thing is to find sources that describe the series in ways that don't immediately translate to other series. Melchoir 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nissonite

Hi, I created a page about a mineral called nissonite. I was wondering if you could clean up the article. Here's the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissonite. If any changes need to be made feel free to do so. Neptunekh 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

In the light of your recent comment, would you care to check WP:RfA?--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your continuing support. Now, a really good question. How do you log out and go to bed when the !votes are coming in, particularly when they are all supporting?--Anthony.bradbury 23:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you ever figure that one out, let me know! It doesn't take much to keep me from falling asleep as it is, so this kind of thing is a killer. Melchoir 23:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't wholly serious, and your RfA was never in doubt. Once you have blown one, as I did, it becomes much more of a tense procedure; and I really do want to get it right this time. So far, so good, and I have a number of significant supporting editors this time (including your good self).--Anthony.bradbury 23:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi there;18/0/0 so far. I think it might happen this time. I want, now, to thank you for all the help you have given me, not only in RfA attenpts but in almost every aspect of Wikipedia over the past year.--Anthony.bradbury 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have e-mailed you. 63/0/0 now, so it is going to happen short of act of God.--Anthony.bradbury 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Melchoir, as you appreciate, I have learned a vast amount since we first interacted (although not, I think, as much as you now know), and am fully confident to take up the mop and bucket it the current application continues to go as it is. But one thing I do not know. How do I thank 80+ !voters without typing out 80+ letters? Is it sandbox and move, or is there a streamlined way of doing it?--Anthony.bradbury 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't mention it! Yeah, one thing you could do is create a sandbox page in your userspace dedicated to your message, then treat it as a template and subst: it into people's talk pages. Melchoir 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·

On 28 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Melchoir, thank you for all the help you have freely offered over the past year, and for your unswerving support through this recent successful RfA and my previous one. I may still come to you to plead ignorance occasionally.--Anthony.bradbury 10:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No, a speech is not wholly necessary, although please feel free if the mood takes you. But I would quite like an answer to my e-mail! --Anthony.bradbury 14:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry, I've moved to a new city, and my computer isn't wholly in order, so I don't have access to the email account that Wikipedia knows about; there's no webmail or anything. Fear not, I'll read it soon enough! Melchoir 21:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no panic. But it is something that I feel I will need to know.--Anthony.bradbury 21:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Kate

Further to our conversation, if you look very quickly you will find that Kate's Tool is presently operational. But not completely accurately.--Anthony.bradbury 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins

Melchoir, I know that you know all there is to know about wikipedia. (Please do not argue). Some long time ago, I saw a page which detailed the activity of all the current admins of the time. Do you have any idea where this page is, because I have not.--Anthony.bradbury 22:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think I know what you're talking about, and I couldn't find anything like it... Melchoir 01:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, neither can I. But I have seen it. Somewhere. It listed all admins in order of the numbers of their admin-related activities delete, block, protect) over, I think, the preceding 12 months. Not to worry.--Anthony.bradbury 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It took a long time. It's User:Dragons flight/deleterlist, but it is no longer current.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Mittag-Leffler star

Well, your wish has been granted. But I ran out of things to write there. Any help? :) You can reply here if you have comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks! The only thing that comes to mind right now is that it would be useful to connect to related concepts like the Borel polygon. I'd also like to see more on the Mittag-Leffler expansion. Melchoir 18:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about these myself. I may write a stub about Mittag-Leffler expansion, but it won't be a lot if I get to it. If you have the time and knowledge, well, then it would be nice on your part. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!!

Melchoir, thanks for the welcome! I appreciate it. spunky 15:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (I know you sent it to me long ago, but I wanted to thank you still)

Great, hope you're liking it here. Melchoir 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Divergent series article

Hello Melchoir, just wanted to make sure that, in your opinion, the "Properties of Summation Methods" section of the Divergent series article now agrees with Hardy's definitions -- in particular, the definition of stability. It appears to: the definition of stability now works with the demonstration given in the 1 - 2 + 3 ... article that given stability and linearity, h = 1/2.

By the way, I understand that the 1 - 2 + 3 ... article is your baby, and you brought it up to featured status... and that by quickly removing the "regular" condition you were simply trying to protect it. However, it was not very polite to do that without describing in any detail why the problem I mentioned was not a problem at all (simply referring to Hardy), and not fixing the Divergent series article, leaving it to others to infer based on your reference to Hardy in 1 - 2 + 3 ... what the definition of stability must be. Please show a little more consideration in the future. Kier07 22:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for not explaining better; I would have liked to, but we're all working under constraints here. Anyway, removing unverified material from a featured article, especially TFA, is always right. A handful of editors saying "I feel like it should be X" on a talk page do not substitute for a reliable source. If necessary, an editor should be able to revert such a change without any explanation. Melchoir 00:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I think that given the philosophy of Wikipedia (especially on TFA) of openness, it's good form to provide clear reasons when well-meaning but misguided edits are reverted. But... I do know what it's like to operate under time constraints. Sorry for snapping at you. Kier07 02:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's fine. Melchoir 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Equipartition of reviews

Hey Melchoir,

Can I lure you away from mathematics and back to some physics? I've been dabbling with the equipartition theorem, and I think it might be getting good. Of course, that's usually when it most needs help! If you had any time to spare and could look it over, that'd be great. There's a scientific peer review going on, in case you wanted to chime in over there. Either way, I'd be much gratified by your insights and comments — thanks! :) Willow 16:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've been distracted by the real world as well, but I'll try to have a look at it! Melchoir 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Greeting

No problem, and no question. I just wanted to touch base, to make sure that we are both still alive. All well?--Anthony.bradbury 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern; I'm fine! I just have a lot of things changing lately -- mostly for the better. The only reason I prefer to be vague is because I don't trust the Internet. When I get things settled down some more, I fully expect to start spending more time on Wikipedia. So you'd better keep the place running until I get back! Melchoir 09:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one trusts the internet. And those wo do should not. Doing my best at running things!--Anthony.bradbury 16:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Divergent series

Hey Melchoir, I noticed your comment and input on many of the divergent series articles, I have suggested a merge on some of them, just wanted to let you know. Most of the ones I suggested for merging were start class and a subset of some other topic. Unless they are expanded I don't think they necessarily require a separate article. I would appreciate your input on this, Thanks--Cronholm144 03:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded to some of those. So, generally... In every field of knowledge, perhaps especially in mathematics, every topic is a subset of some other topic. And there's nothing wrong with stub articles. Surely you have some other criteria for suggesting merges? Melchoir 09:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't suggest merger simply because they are stubs, but because they do not meet the criterion for inclusion in wikipedia, and they are unlikely to ever be much more than stubs unless they are made to be very similar to the FA article you already wrote. I think a general merger of all of the divergent series article into one comprehensive article on notable divergent series would be the appropriate course.--Cronholm144 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about we concentrate the various separate discussions we are having here--Cronholm144 09:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

First, what criterion? Second, what makes you so confident in predicting how articles will turn out? Melchoir 10:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, You seem to have very strong feelings about this issue, I was just assessing articles for addition to WP mathematics purview, I have been at it for 15 hours so far and I am very tired. So, since it seems that you have these articles under control, just delete my comments and pretend they never happened. I obviously don't have popular support and I don't want to start a war. I still think that consolidating the divergent series would be a good idea until they grow into at least start class but that will be my last word on it. I think that you are capable of taking care of these articles. I'm sorry to have caused such a ruckus.--Cronholm144 10:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, after you get some rest, maybe you'll feel like revisiting the issue? I don't ask rhetorical questions; I really think it would be a good idea to clarify how you think about this situation, since you'll probably hit similar issues again. Melchoir 10:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and G'night--Cronholm144 10:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)