User talk:Melchoir/Archive3

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.

Bush Talk Page

The discussion of George Bush being a shape shifting alien is a waste of time and is not a useful topic for an article that has very serious issues, if this topic needs to be discuessed then an article for the theory should be created and it can be discussed on that talk page, so I wouldn't be saying i caused any damage by refocusing the discussion on the legitimate issues that should be discussed on the George Bush Talk page. Jeffrey 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Bush is not an alien, but take a look at the impact of your edits. This was the talk page before you edited it. Take a look at all the discussions in the table of contents. This is the page after you edited it; all of those discussions are gone. I am not sure what you did, but please don't do it again. Melchoir 04:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation of Amrit

You categorised Amrit to [[Category:Liquid water]]. Amrit holds religious importance and significance and is not directly related to articles linking to science and other recent topics. I have removed the category from the page, as of now. Regards. --Andy123(talk) 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I've given my own reasoning at Talk:Amrit. Cheers, Melchoir 20:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am convinced by your rationale, but if I were you, I might as well wait for some other users to turn up and approve of it. Regards. --Andy123(talk) 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Crofton

Thanks for Crofton formula. Do you feel strongly that it should be called that, rather than Crofton's theorem? Charles Matthews 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you Google any combination of words and apostrophes around Crofton, it tends to return a complex distribution of pages describing seemingly different results. I have yet to stumble across a source that explains the confusion. In any case, the reference listed refers to the result exclusively as "the Crofton formula", so I think the safe thing to do is to follow it. Given [1], I'm now regretting even the redirect from Crofton's formula. Melchoir 19:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

AfG

No problem at all. I was having trouble with posting the AfG and would have needed to get assistance so you actually helped me out. Thanks! - Conrad Devonshire 08:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stanford

You know, not all edits by anonymous IP addresses are vandalism - you might want to take 10 seconds to actually read the article before reverting ... Perhaps if you look at the article on Stanford again you'll notice: 1) the ranking information was awkardly out of place in the paragraph about the size of the university 2) identical information appears two paragraphs lower in a paragraph on rankings and prestige

Maybe this will convince you to reconsider, maybe not - but this experience has certainly convinced me that there may be some merit to all the wikipedia trashing going on on slashdot these days

Sexuality of Adolf Hitler

FYI...This article is up for vote on AFD. OSU80 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me! I'm fine with the way the discussion is headed, though. Melchoir 01:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

CoG

Thanks for the heads-up. Guinnog 00:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup! Melchoir 00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ultra-Space Field Theory

Does this have something to do w you? I have no idea, but I guessed it might? Sam Spade 11:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... not really! The IP who left you that message seems to be referring to a note I left on his own talk page concerning these three edits, which were reverted by two other users and myself. Now he seems to refer to himself in the third person and think that I'm interested in his theory? Well, suffice it to say that I have better things to learn! Perhaps a gentle shove in the direction of WP:NOR will settle this one; I should have given him that link from the beginning. Melchoir 17:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Shannon number and 10^120 (number)

Someone has reverted the edit that changed 10^120 (number) into a redirect and called that edit "vandalism". That edit was certainly not vandalism and now we have two duplicate articles. What's going on here? 64.193.70.223 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah. No problem, the edit was reverted by an automatic tool (VandalProof) because it was made from an AOL IP, it effectively erased the article, and it didn't have an edit summary; together, those flags almost always indicate vandalism. I've fixed it; thanks for telling me! Melchoir 17:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Melchoir,

Dear Melchoir,

I apologize if this is not the best way to reach you. I'm not sure this will reach you, as I'm not familiar with navigating the Wikipedia.

I'm the author of a treatise titled the Ultra-Space Field Theory. Recently I came across a reference waring a Wikipwedia writer to stop pushing the Ultra-Space Field Theory.

Although I have been ignored by most of the scientific community, this seems to be a common phenomenon through out physics history. If you'd like a copy of the treatise, I be happy to send you a copy via snailmail.

Well... I'm not sure what to tell you! I'm not really a physicist myself, nor do I have much influence on the scientific community at large. More to the point, I've seen a bit of Ultra-Space Field Theory on Google and Wikipedia's own records, and I don't think I'm personally interested in it. Since you took the time to contact me, I'll give you this much advice: try making predictions. Melchoir 15:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for feedback.

Good day,

A while ago, you expressed concern about the content of the article I wrote on Dissimulation. The article has been rewritten, but a cleanup tag is appended for anyone who could offer constructive revisions to the entry.

If you have any comments, questions, or concerns which you would like to submit, please use the article's talk page for such matters.

Regards --Folajimi 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Melchoir 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ADA Content Removal

Back in October 2005 I posted content about the American Dental Association, mostly basic facts and an event timeline, and you apparently removed it in February 2006. Can you explain your reasoning behind the removal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.122.227.66 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 April 2006.

Well, as you can see from my edit summaries in the page history, the content I removed consisted of copyright violations from http://www.ada.org/ada/about/history/ada_timeline_1840.asp and http://www.ada.org/ada/about/history/ada_background.asp. Copying text from external websites is (almost) never okay, and in this case, they give an explicit warning: "Copyright 1995-2006 American Dental Association. Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission." See also Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. Melchoir 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I work for the ADA and I'm familiar with our copyright policy. Does this mean we need to rewrite something specifically for Wikipedia?--Napdynmite 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the plot thickens! Well, yes, one of your options is always just to write something else. However, if you are in a position to donate the content to Wikipedia, that might be easier. From Wikipedia:Copyright problems:

"Copyright owners who submitted their own work to Wikipedia: If you submitted work to Wikipedia which you had previously published (especially online), and your submission was marked as a potential infringement of copyright, stating that you are the copyright holder of the work on the article's talk page helps, but will not likely prevent deletion. It is sufficient to:

• Make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL at the site of the original publication.
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation."

There's a little more information at Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, although that page is more geared towards me than towards you. Melchoir 02:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, It sounds like I have to claim permission to post the information in the talk section of the page and then you need to confirm this with the Webmaster at the ADA. She is aware of the content re-use and I have already run the content through our Public Information Department as well as our Legal Department so it should be a slam dunk. Thanks for the help!--Napdynmite 23:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob! Just as long as you understand that any confirmation emails won't reach me personally, as I don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation. Melchoir 23:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello, I just wanted to thank you Melchoir for the warm welcome you gave me, and the assistance you lended on editing the Chaminade College School page. Please tell me if this isn't the best way to talk with you. Silander 04:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: Don't worry, I do intend to stick around.

My pleasure! Just holler if you need anything else! Melchoir 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories and Images Template Page?

Hi Melchoir- thanks for the welcome, and thanks for getting mixed layer categorized... is that something contributors are supposed to figure out how to do? I'm working on uploading an image and getting it in there, too. This stuff all takes time to figure out... Is there just a simple template type page somewhere that has a dummy image and categorization tag to modify? Take care, and thanks again for your work. K Kefisher 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, categorization is certainly helpful! The main page is Wikipedia:Categorization, which has some more-or-less sophisticated tools at the bottom, but I never learned to use them. Mostly, to figure out how to categorize an article, I visit similar articles to find relevant categories, and then I browse through the subcategories to find the best ones. As a bonus, you can often copy and paste the code from other articles. Finally, if you create an article or just come across one without any categories, and you're not sure how to categorize it, you can add {{Uncategorized}} to the bottom, which will list the page in Category:Category needed.

As for dummy image tags, they're all at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial. For a list of almost every template you might want, try Wikipedia:Template messages. You can see how templates and images are going to format by hitting "show preview" before saving any edits, but if/when you want to really experiment, there's always Wikipedia:Sandbox. Good hunting! Melchoir 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Circle division by chord

Just a follow-up that the question asked on maths reference desk, the one about dividing circle by chords, already has an article in wikipedia. It is Dividing a circle into areas. So read it, and improve it as you see fit! --Lemontea 10:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert! The article actually looks pretty good, although it's a little awkward stylistically. Melchoir 11:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote part of the article, the second proof is almost completely rewritten, in a different style and tone, hope that is better.(And yes, I love that proof. It is so elegant and genius!) Maybe some comment on how it looks now? If only I had more time will I make some diagrams to aid the proof.(I am supposed to be studying hard for my certificate exam...) --Lemontea 13:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks great! I'll just shorten a couple of formulas... Melchoir 22:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate

Hi Melchior ! (I read your user page !). I see your name in many of the answers in the reference desk page. I really approciate your enthusiasm in answering the questions and helping out others --Wikicheng 18:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, how kind of you to say so! Thanks! Melchoir 20:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

FrankandJames.com

You prodded this article and it has already been removed three times, at least one time by the subject of the article. Finally, I just put it up for AfD. If you would like to vote on it, please do. IrishGuy 17:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! Melchoir 19:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I got tired of constantly having to reprod the article. I think your reasons for the prod were more than substantial and so hopefully the AfD will sort this out.IrishGuy 19:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whitney embedding theorem talk page: unanswered questions

Thank you for your attempt to answer my question about the embedding of hyperbolic spaces in Euclidean spaces in Talk:Whitney_embedding_theorem. Your reply didn't give me the information I was most looking for, however, because I had failed to state my real question (the question behind the question, so to speak). I have stated that question (three related questions actually) in a reply to your reply in that discussion page. I have also asked a question about what type of embedding (isometric, smooth, or other) the Whitney embedding theorem applies to. I thought you might be able to answer some or all of those questions, so I decided to give you a heads up on those questions here. It is probably best for you to reply to them in the that discussion page so that others can have the benefit of that information. Thanks in advance for whatever you are able to answer and for your efforts involved, and thank you as others have said for all your work in answering other's (ahem, I mean others') questions on Wikipedia. Kevin Lamoreau 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're welcome! It's good that you contacted me, since I'd forgotten all about that talk page. I'll read through it when I get the chance... Melchoir 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Plant organization

Sorry about that. For some reason I thought it had been deleted and then re-created as "fsf". Thanks for catching my mistake. FreplySpang (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no prob! Melchoir 02:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, maybe it should have stayed deleted... Melchoir 03:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"possibly a hoax since a $9.70 billion revenue would have showed up somewhere, like List of Fortune 500," heh. I guess the COO named "Gwedo Valentino" might have tipped us off too. :) FreplySpang (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wasn't prepared for such a boring hoax! Melchoir 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Ah, it feels nice to be welcomed! :-) About your question, I'd tell you more in private, but you haven't got your e-mail enabled, it seems. Cheers - Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

De nada! Melchoir 13:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, thanks Melchoir for sending me the Newbie's templatePaddington62 08:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But of course! Neither of you are really newbies, but it's tradition, and it's the least I can do! Melchoir 08:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Water landing, which you recently created, 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.

--Cactus.man ✍ 07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

welcome!

hizzles Melchoir/Archive3, n welcome ta wikipedia! thizzanx fo` yo contribizzles . Slap ya self. i hizzy you like tha place n decide ta stay fo' sho'.Here is a few good links fo` newcoma:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How ta edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How ta write a bootylicious article
• Mizzle of Stile

I hope you enjoy perpetratin' here n being a Wizzle! Pleaze sign yo name on rap pages using four tildes (~~Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)); this will automatically produce yo name n tha date fo' sheezy. If you need help, chizzay out Qizzles ask me on mah rap page, or place {{helpme}} on yo rap pizzle n someone wizzle show up shortly ta brotha yo questions. Again, welcome ta this plizace!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

So... so many Zs... Melchoir 02:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

citation templates and names

You asked: "what's the technical disctinction?". Some of my thoughts:

Those templates are intended for mass use, so their names should be short. So we came to "cite xxx" instead of "xxx reference". Also someone had created the category "citation templates" (me?). There is also a template:citation, which was once thought out as an über-template that could be used instead of the specific specialized templates (lost some momentum, not sure if this is the right way to go).

When switching from uppercase params ({{book reference}}) to lowercase params ({{cite book}} we needed for every migrated template a new name because during the migration phase, both the new and old name had to coexist. It's not easy to choose such names. Everyone has another idea and if a name is taken, new opinions appear and want another one. Sigh. Personnally I don't care that much about names.

Moving templates (I mean giving them a new name) is a bad idea, as this makes maintenance hard, if the same template appears under a bunch of aliases in articles. Well, in the end, you can take whatever name you want, it is always a bit wrong. Template names may best be seen like product specifiers for TV's or so. They are just a bit arbitray. And they have a historic background.

The term citation as used in policies/guidelines doesn't necesserily have a one to one correspondence with the name category:citation templates.

To put it simply: Just don't care that much about the names of templates. That's it! --Ligulem 11:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well. Wouldn't it be nice if the names did mean something? I'm sure I'm not the only editor to fall into the trap of assuming they do! Melchoir 00:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there. Thank you for your welcome, which is, I am ashamed to say, some way in the past. I have contributed quite a number of articles and edits, which appear not to have upset anyone. I recognise that I have been adding/editing for only a very brief space of time. When I ultimately achieve sufficient skill, experience and reliability, could you tell me how/if I could get to be an admin? My areas of expertise are Imperial Rome, Naval weaponry, Naval history, German history 1933-1945 and Medical science and practise. Anthony.bradbury 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, there's nothing to be ashamed about! It looks like you're doing great. An explanation of the process for creating admins is at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. In your case, as a non-admin interested in the position, you'll want to pay special attention to the "Things to consider before accepting a nomination" section.

I don't think I can add anything to that link about adminship, but I can point you in the direction of other people interested in the topics you mentioned. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history (including task forces) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships are both very active projects. If you want to get noticed on one, you could sign yourself up as a participant, ask questions on the talk page, or even start to answer questions! You might also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Weaponry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, but they appear less active.

If you have any other questions, just ask! Melchoir 00:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I will gain more experience, but expect to seek nomination in due course. Anthony.bradbury 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Square Root Day

I've seen that you've added a "not verified" tag to the Square root day article. While I'd like to add refrences, most of the solid basis of the article is this Mercury News article which has gone offline and turned a 404 on me. Any suggestions? NorseOdin 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that's a hilarious article! I found it preserved here. Feel free to cite it with that link and remove the tag. (The story doesn't do much to convince me that the topic is article-worthy, but as long as it's got a reference, I'll let someone else whine about that.) Melchoir 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

did you know?

You can mark blatant copyvios as "speedy" under CSD A8 now, as long as the article is under 48 hours old. Cheers! --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, there was a time when I overused that tag, but now I'm more strict in my interpretation of "commercial content provider". Well, thanks anyway! Melchoir 03:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Kana

You noticed my explosive generation of kana stubs? Um, ya, the essence of it is that I noticed that someone had left a giant table of redlinks, and instructions for how to fill them out, but never got around to it. Sure, I'll fill out each of the articles. If nothing else, it's worth about 300 Main namespace edits. Thanks for informing me of the images on Commons — I didn't know about those! I'll also do interwiki links where possible. Thanks! - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you! Melchoir 03:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

XD, thanks again for showing me those categories and the interwiki list. I've finished all non-borrowed kana in the gojuon. I'm pruning away bad interwiki links, and then my next task will likely be to see about getting the stroke orders for the various kana transwikied to English and incorporated. Happy editing! - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Stroke orders, hmm? Good luck! Melchoir 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Lists of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil

Yes, i copied the list from another site. Lists are NOT copyrightable. Here's a paragraph from another site ---Under US law, word lists and phone books are not copyrightable (given a few days I could probably find the court case). US government documents are not copyrightable. Copyright cannot be restored to works which have lost it for any reason (despite the unconstitutional passage of the URAA). from this weblink http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/11/msg00306.html--- Do you also think that atlases need permission to print their own versions of maps covering the same 50 states? Do you think every music magazine needs to get permission to list the same top 10 records? Once again. Lists are not copyrightable. There are a number of Brazilian Indigenous peoples and nobody can copyright the list of their names. If you're not interested in comprehensive lists instead of an abridged one, just say so. Astropithicus

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service? Lists are absolutely copyrightable if they contain original creative content; [2]'s extensive compilation of alternate names looks like a great example to me, and you copied it in whole. You're welcome to drop by Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 May 13/Articles and argue otherwise. Melchoir 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Lists of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (Part 2)

I'm still not convinced. The article you sent supports my claim that lists are not copyrightable. It is true that it says it is the kernal of creativity that is copyrightable not the information itself. If you simply GOOGLE the first tribe listed: Aikanã (Aikaná, Massaká,Tubarão), which includes its alternative names, you will find many sites that already have this infomation verbatim.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Aikan%C3%A3+%28Aikan%C3%A1%2C+Massak%C3%A1%2CTubar%C3%A3o%29&btnG=Search

I'm not into arguing about these things. Let me also tell you that my style is to copy a whole list and THEN change it so that it is more condusive to a project. There are in fact, many tribes missing from that list that i will add later and many OTHER alternative names that are missing. Just adding one of these "extra" features would immediately nullify any copyrightable questions about this. I understand Wikipedia must be diligent about copyright infringements to avoid unwanted legal action that could cost it money and hurt the project. I truly understand this. I concur to heed caution regarding this matter rather than get high and mighty about it if i am indeed correct. Perhaps i should create my own list and such and edit it before creating a new page on Wikipedia since it seems the web police are out in full force these days. I commend you for catching this so soon and want to let you know i am only here to work with you not against you. Astropithicus 4:23 PM, 13 May 2006

Well, thanks for the sentiment! I've looked through the sources on Google; there are a couple of documents from the Brazilian or Mexican governments, which copyright their works (unlike the United States), and a couple of pages that cite Instituto Socioambiental. I don't know if they have permission for that or not.

Yes, please do create your own list! In my understanding, creating a derivative work from a single source does not nullify copyright concerns, but if you draw from several sources, well, that's just research. Melchoir 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Gloucestershire County League Premier Division

Your recent edit to Gloucestershire County League Premier Division was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

A question, please, from a beginner. In the "Talk" section of the article entitled "Joseph Goebbels", there is a long dissertation (paragraph 7 when I was there) entitled "Timeline and Potted Biography".

After a long and essentially accurate dissertation, which should be in the Article rather than the Talk, the author then, in his final paragraph, produces a virulent anti-semitic and racist broadside which should not be anywhere, and which would get him arrested if printed in the daily papers.

Is it Wikipedia policy to leave comments in Talk undisturbed, whatever they say? Anthony.bradbury 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it's not quite Wikipedia policy to leave comments in Talk undisturbed, but I think the etiquette is that it's usually better to just ignore such rhetoric. In this particular case, the material seems to be a copyright violation from [3]. Unfortunately, when someone enters a lot of well-written text into Wikipedia all at once, it's usually copied from somewhere; I got suspicious of the text, so I Googled a phrase and there it was! Copyvios shouldn't persist even on Talk pages, so I'll remove it. Thanks for alerting me! And if you want a better answer to your original question, someone at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) might be able to provide more help. Melchoir 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lorenzo de' Medici

Melchoir, is it possible for you or some admin to protect the article entitled Lorezo de' Medici? Some half-wit keeps adding stupid edits; I have just corrected three, but I am not an expert and lack the ability either to block or revert. Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like you reverted just fine. As for today's, culprit, it has already been blocked; see User talk:82.113.4.11. Melchoir 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Anthony.bradbury 21:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has been mutilated again, this time to an extent beyond my skill easily to repair. I have notified the original author.--Anthony.bradbury 13:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. You might want to check out Help:Reverting... Melchoir 13:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I like this article, and am starting to feel quite protective. I will look at Help:Reverting - I had thought it a privilege of Admins. --Anthony.bradbury 22:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mixed nuts, which you recently created, 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.

Note that I think some disambig may be good to add if you haven't already as there is a film called Mixed Nuts

Thank you for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks! As for the film, I originally considered a disambig, but I couldn't bear the ugliness in my own creation, so I incorporated the link into the article instead. If you think it needs a notice at the top, go ahead and put it in-- I just won't do it myself! Melchoir 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

illustrations

Melchoir, I'm sorry to pester you, but I can't find my where to where I want to be. Could you point me towards finding out what photographs are available, where they are, and how I call them up? For instance, there is an article about the Italian Dreadnought "Giulio Cesare". Looking into "edit" (without disturbing anything) I see that the picture is labelled "GiulioCesare1914.jpg". I understand jpg, but how could I have found the pic except by trial and error? --Anthony.bradbury 22:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No prob! If you're looking at Italian battleship Giulio Cesare, just click on the picture and it'll take you to the image description page, where "Image:GiulioCesare1914.jpg" is the title. Then you can just copy that to place the same picture in other articles. Is that what you mean? Melchoir 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, not quite; that was an example. How do I locate pictures of other ships? If I want to write an article on Yamashiro, for instance, where can I locate a picture? I can't go and photograph her, she's 60+ years underwater, and lifting from a book is breach of copyright.(ps I know that article exists - it's an example). Do we have archives I can access?--Anthony.bradbury 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well that's harder. Wikipedia doesn't really have an internal archive, since any image uploaded here is supposed to be used in at least one article. Otherwise, the image is an "orphan", and that's discouraged. The best place to start looking for an image is the Wikimedia Commons, which includes images uploaded by users who edit in languages other than English. So, one good thing to try is to poke around the interwiki links on the left side of your screen and see if another language has an image in an analogous or related article. I've found a few that way. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia is the most complete already, so this isn't as useful to us as it might be to others.

If you can't find an image anywhere on Wikimedia, you'll have to upload it yourself. For information on where to look, try Wikipedia:Free image resources and Wikipedia:Public domain image resources. Before visiting any of those sites, though, there's always Google images. Try running a Google image search with (foo .gov) or (foo .mil); unlike many governments, the United States releases all images generated by federal employees to the public domain. (But see Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S. government photographs for caveats.)

Finally, if you've tried everything you can think of and you still don't have an image you need, you can list a request on Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Good luck! Melchoir 22:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks.

battleships

i have discovered what appears to be a significant lacck of articles on battleships of the Roal Navy in the latter years of the nineteenth century. I have determined to remedy that lack, and have made a start thereon. I am, as you know, a neophyte; i would appreciate it if you would occasionally cast an eye to ensure that my articles are of an adequate standard.--Anthony.bradbury 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I can try! I must warn you that I'm not too good at paying long-term attention to things on Wikipedia unless I can put them on my watchlist, so if you want help on a particular article in the future, you might want to contact me again. Melchoir 22:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavery

I'd put the 'translated from' text on the bottom of the page when I posted the article; one of the first edits by someone was to summarily remove that to the talk page; now you've put something similar back up - what is the wiki policy on this? (just curious)Bridesmill 22:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't even notice that! Well, I don't know if there's a policy; I'm not usually involved in translations. But my common sense says that we cite our sources. That could probably be grounded in policy, but personally, it seems obvious! Melchoir 22:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and thanks for writing the article!) Melchoir 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you hate Serbs so much

Why have you removed my detaled explanation of referendum fraud ? Why do you hate us so much? Dzoni

Please check the article Serbophobia,you have to agree taht it sure looks like you have it

Dzoni

Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for political debates. Melchoir 04:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RE:Image:Macromaraschino.jpg

Why thank you ^ ^ With what I paid for the camera, of which I had no professional justifaction for the price, it's good to get some usefull shaps out of it : ) JayKeaton 11:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

stubs

Melchoir, I am working through the battleshiups of the Victorian Navy, producing previously unwritten articles about them. (So far Defence, Resistance, Hector, Achilles. Comment if you wish). A few ships of the period have short stub articles lacking much detail. When these aricles are labelled as stubs, is it thought acceptable to erase them and start over? I should say I have not done so as yet.--Anthony.bradbury 22:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that people usually don't erase stubs before expanding them. But if the existing stubs are so bad that they would actually hinder you, I think it would be okay to start over from scratch. After all, it's not like you're deleting the stub; it'll still be there in the page history. Just try to make sure that you don't lose any information in the process! Melchoir 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying very hard not to upset anybody, be they author, editor or admin. In the case of the stubs in question, all the data contained would fit neatly into the standard ship data template.--Anthony.bradbury 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I went to the original authors and asked permission. No problem. Getting the hang of it, but still fuzzy on wher to find images to stick into my articles.--Anthony.bradbury 22:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, sometimes there just ins't an image to be found. Is there a specific ship you'd like help with? Melchoir 22:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the change up on numerology. It's a million times better, and no longer offensive.

Thanks again.

Sure, my pleasure! Melchoir 21:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy (Ethnoastronomy)

Hi,

Your recent addition of a link to the nonexistent article on Ethnoastronomy has brought to the fore a problem on the relation between Archaeo- and Ethnoastronomy that we've been struggling with for at least 20 years. I've opened a discussion on Talk:Archaeoastronomy that you might want to join. --SteveMcCluskey 13:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Right! Melchoir 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a try at correcting the problem; you might want to take a look. --SteveMcCluskey 21:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Brokeback articles

RESPONSE 30-May-2006: To Melchoir: Whatever defense you wish to say, you have been vandalizing my contributions to Wikipedia, by blanking whole sections, without an attempt to open a prior dialog with me. Since you are new to this, let me remind you that you should seriously consider talking with a previous-revision editor before deleting, or reverting, within hours, several articles that had been expanded, in a good-faith attempt, to improve information. In general, let me advise you that "form over substance" is usually a very bad policy for information distribution. However, you are not the only person who is vandalizing Wikipedia articles, but just the latest causing such ridiculous problems in thwarting the use of Wikipedia. See: VANDALISM, below. -Wikid77 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

VANDALISM: The practice of vandalism in Wikipedia articles is not limited to inserting jokes, but also includes deletion of whole sections of information, without some prior warning, discussion, and concensus. Such deletion of sections of information is called "blanking" and is very frequent, perhaps because it is much easier to delete a section (or revert to a prior version), rather than to add new detailed information.

In several articles, the new section "See also" has been blanked multiple times, under the guise of nonconformance to the strictest of Wikipedia format standards; however, such blanking is still pure vandalism, even if disguised by elaborate excuses. The correct approach is to establish a warning notice for other editors, open a dialogue, and try to reach a concensus before deleting whole sections from an article, especially if those sections are new, which further amplifies the extreme level of the vandalism. -Wikid77 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Melchoir 21:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible Society

I`m fed up with Catholics as you,using Wikipedia as proselytist media. I will write articles exposing cruel persecutiuon by catholics against bible societies.

I am most certainly not Catholic. As for these articles you plan to write, if you can keep them in compliance with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, then have fun! Melchoir 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jiaogulan

Hi, thanks for the taxobox at Jiaogulan -- can you check the Latin name above the taxobox, though? Badagnani 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it's so easy to forget a part! ...Done. Melchoir 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Gasoline price website: Original Research?

Why do you think the article Gasoline price website has original research? All of the information in the article is true, and the links to the sites should be good enough reference for the article. Please clue me in as to why it is marked for original research. --No1lakersfan 02:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The article presents a secondary synthesis that isn't backed up by any references. It will help if you match claims to external links, but even then, the article still makes a judgement on what constitutes a typical website. What the article really needs is to point to some kind of literature discussing the proliferation of these sites as a broader trend. Otherwise it's just a random collection of external links, possibly for advertisement purposes.

In general, any article that has no References section and not even inline links is original research by default. Melchoir 02:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Soft Drink catagory

Why are you removing the "soft drink" catagory from several of the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo Products (Such as Diet Cherry Coke and Pepsi? By Definition, they belong in this catagory. I originally thought it was a mistake removing a catagory it belongs to, but then it was reverted back again. What's going on? ZyphBear 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories should answer most of your questions. Here's the rationale behind the current case: Category:Coca-Cola brands and Category:PepsiCo brands contain over a hundred soft drink articles. If they are all dumped into Category:Soft drinks, the latter category becomes too huge to navigate. The whole point of using subcategories is so that doesn't happen. Melchoir 19:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for rhetorical effect, consider this: each of those articles also in some sense "belongs to" Category:Non-alcoholic beverages, Category:Beverages, and Category:Food and drink. There's no sense in putting an article in all of them! Melchoir 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

<elchior, I have a problem

My younger brother got on to my account and made changes to it. Please remoe your warning. Thank you. Scarletspeed7 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Hold on... Melchoir 06:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This comment made just moments after user vandalized pages on Snakes on a Plane and Jesus. FWIW I recommend leaving the warning. HumbleGod 06:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I believe it. The account certainly wasn't a vandal before an hour ago. Melchoir 06:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All right. Thank you very much. I really only got on here to help with the comic database since it lacked what I consider important inforamtion. I'm going to change my password so he cannot get on. Thank you for your help. Scarletspeed7 07:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirpan Article

• File:CIMG0308.JPG
• File:CIMG0309.JPG
• File:CIMG0310.JPG
• File:CIMG0311.JPG

I see that you have reverted the article Kirpan without listing any quotes regarding the alleged copyright violation - (I thought that the official policy is to alert the user on the discussion page before reverting see Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#First_step:_talk_to_the_other_parties_involved) please give the quotes before you revert the article in future so that it can be checked. (you have failed to give any material that I have used not being a quotation of regulation) It could be that the other party has used my text/article! - it not too difficult to do that, is it? --Hari Singh 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources are all listed in the page history. Melchoir 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• 1: Images: I will post 4 or 5 pictures of my own kirpan on this page to prove a point. May be then you will be convinced. Here's the first one. I will post the rest later. My pictures are released into the public domain - So if you find them elsewhere, it no breach of copyright. If you want me to post a few pictures of a kirpan, please let me know!!

• 2: Page History: The items that you have quoted are "Quotes" of the regulations in the UK – This is a technique which you find everywhere on Wikipedia, in papers, books, etc!! How can one show these regulations without quoting them? And quoting a small amount of anything for reviewing is allowed, isn't it?

Further, the Reht Maryada is also a regulation which has to be quoted and is set by the SGPC, the official Sikh Organisation.

Please look at this article: Igor_Stravinsky#Criticism which appears to have a few quotes - perhaps you should delete this article as well!! and then I can show you a few more such articles!!

Please be kind enough to explain the following abbreviated terms: "blank copyvio", reorder legal section and in fact, rv copyvio of http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm back to YEvb0; see talk

Look before you leap!! What really is your problem? I think your actions are completely unwarranted and unfair and a complete farce!! --Hari Singh 02:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

1: Thank you for the new pictures. They are higher-quality, better-looking and more informative than the usual fare that anyone could copy from internet sources, and that's just one reason why copying things into Wikipedia is discouraged. I am not sure what point you're trying to prove, though. By calling the above images the first of your own, are you admitting that the previous images are, in fact, copyright violations? (No, I am not admitting anything of that sort - all I am saying is that I have uploaded 1000s of pictures to the web and you will find them elsewhere - that does not mean a copyright breach, does it?)

2: If you are referring to this edit, the material I removed was more than a short quote. It is the entire content of the "Sikh Employees" section of the source, including two speakers and multiple paragraphs. I think you got this wrong - the first was quote from warwickshire police and the second was the discussion in parliament, each was less than 10 lines and they both quote the legal position regarding the wearing of the kirpan in the UK - which is what I am trying to inform the users about. Tell me how you would quote regulations of this sort?
Please see article:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 and by doing a google search I found: [4]
Almost the whole of the 4 sections are verbatim copies - doesn't this breach copyright?

Okay, I've seen Igor Stravinsky#Criticism. There are only short snippets, each no longer than a couple of sentences. Nothing is reproduced in its entirety.

"Copyvio" is short for "copyright violation", and "rv" is short for "revert". YEvb0 was the user whose version I reverted to. Thanks for the clarification

Let me assure you that I am not treating you unfairly. Sadly, getting rid of copyrighted material is a routine exercise on Wikipedia. It is not usually controversial. And if you'll give me a minute, I'll list the quotes that alerted me to the individual sources. Melchoir 02:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• For this edit, you provided the source yourself. It is a newspaper article, one of the worst things to copy, because people are actively making money from it. At the bottom of the page, the source says "Copyright 1995-2000. The Cincinnati Enquirer" When posting the article the second time, I left out this section - you still rv'ed the article? Why? As this did not apply, did it

• For this edit, I have already stated my reasons. Don't forget to check out the copyright used, which does not permit commerical redistribution. Since Wikipedia does permit commercial redistribution, we cannot copy such material. I think you are wrong here - the passage that I have quoted is a small section of that days business and no permission is required for the purposes of the point being made here - which to inform everyone working for the UK government about the rules governing the kirpan - I think that is very important point to make and the best way is to quote the discussion so that there is no doubt. 'How else do you think this point can be made?

• For this edit, I Googled the phrase "anyone to carry a blade exceeding the length" and came up with the source, which is another newspaper article, saying "Copyright © 2005 Khalsa Press, All rights reserved." This search gives 169,000 results because it is part of a regulation and again I changed the wording on the second version. You still rv'ed this edition - please explain?

• For this edit, you provided the source, which says "© Warwickshire Police 2003". see fair-use and "quotation of regulation" quoted by me elswhere

• Finally, the last straw was when I saw that only one new section of writing remained. I Googled "weapon is both incorrect and misleading" and came up with the source, which claims copyright Sandeep Singh Crar, All Rights Reserved. This section was changed on the second edition - you still rv'ed it - so what was the reason the second time?

This combination of theft and plagiarism is unacceptable. If it had appeared in a new article, it would have earned a {{db-copyvio}} tag and been deleted long ago. As it is, there is a clean version of the article, so I restored it. And that brings us to the present. Melchoir 02:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) this statement is utterly wrong - I have not gained anything in setting up this article. Further, this article has GFDL status (Sikhiwiki) and you should not be questioning its status as such - Also, the only beneficiary from this article would be Sikhism and I am sure that all Sikhism site would have no objections to their material being used to promote this religion. The proof of this is Sikhiwiki where no complaint has been received about any of the point that you have raised from any party ever!. See sikhiwiki.org

Below is a section from Wikipedia regarding use of material for quotation:

What's copyrighted? Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.

What about fair use? Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.

Clearly, "fair use" allows one to use material to support or criticise a point being made. To show that the kirpan can be worn in any country, one need to quote the

• regulation or
• the "official source",

which is what I have done.

I think your attitude is incorrect and unfair and misuse of this site? I am not happy with your decision and wish to take this further. In the meantime I will be posting a basic version of the article again without the points that you have mentioned above or amended. I would appreciate if you discuss any changes before you make them - as mention at Resolving_disputes

I think you are deliberately picking on my religion and this article. --Hari Singh 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume you expect responses only to the bolded sections.

• Civil Rights Act of 1968: The work of the United States federal government is in the public domain. Virtually every other government copyrights its works, including the UK.
• Reverting the second time: This edit did not include an edit summary, and so it appeared to be a reversion of my edit. If you want people to understand what you're doing, it is your responsibility to explain yourself.

I may not share your religion, but I have nothing against it. If it is within your imagination to grasp, I am trying to help you, with no benefit to myself. For such a simple operation as removing copyright violations, I have already said much more than is necessary. Just don't do it again. Melchoir 05:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome!

I was pleasantly surprised by the quickness of your response to my first attempt at writing an article. :)

Regards --Marsipan 22:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I saw it pop up on Special:Newpages, and I try to pay special attention to authors who haven't been welcomed yet. So, welcome! Melchoir 22:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Zoological authorities

You added a list of species with zoological authorities to the article cracker butterfly. However, you put parentheses round each authority indiscriminately. In zoology, parentheses indicate that the author originally assigned the species to a different genus and that the species has since been moved (see WP:TX#Authorities). I spot-checked a couple of entries and I see that Hamadryas februa should be Hübner, 1823, not (Hübner, 1823).

I would be grateful if you could check and correct the rest of the authorities. Gdr 09:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that! I'm afraid I don't know where I would check them all; I simply copied the list from fr:Hamadryas. Melchoir 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Google has a cache of frwiki's reference here. Their square brackets seem to be meaningful, but I'm not sure how. Melchoir 17:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do my best to sort them out. Square brackets around the year is a convention indicating some uncertainty as to the date of description. It's not a convention recommended by the ICZN and accordingly it's not used in the English Wikipedia. Gdr 18:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)