User talk:Melchoir/Archive10

Toilet paper orientation
That's just bizarre.

You said you were going to nominate it at DYK in your edit summary, but I didn't seem to find it on Template talk:Did you know. Please give me a heads up if you do end up nominating it; I'd be happy to review it for you. NW ( Talk ) 14:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks! I haven't nominated it yet because it's not quite ready. I'll let you know when it is! Melchoir (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's quite an article.. elaborative.. nice work. :) - Tommy! [ message ] 15:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merci! :) Melchoir (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, what an amazing article! I'm surprised and impressed that there's so much to say about it. This sort of thing - a comprehensive article on an unusual or obscure topic - is what Wikipedia does best. I've added it to WP:Unusual articles, where it definitely belongs. Robofish (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Why thank you! Melchoir (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Superb! Cheers, and waiting for more! East of Borschov 09:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Melchoir (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Marry me. Skomorokh  07:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Over? Melchoir (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Excellent! Melchoir (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Help out with reviewing DYK nominations!
Hi Melchoir, the nomination entry system for DYK is backlogged - nominations up till as early as July 4 have yet to receive a single review. There have only been reviews on some articles sporadically, across the board (July 3 to July 10). You may want to consider volunteering your services as a reviewer at this time. We need to clear the "older nominations" before it turns old (and stale). Quick link here. Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm afraid I'm (1) not up to speed on the actual DYK requirements, and (2) pretty tired. :-) Sorry! Melchoir (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Toilet paper orientation
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC) OMG!! You've made this topic encyclopedic!!! How bizarre!! And there was me thinking Deer penis was bad!! And over 100 references too!! LOL! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, paraphrasing Malcolm Gladwell, the trick is to start out with the assumption that the topic is interesting. then proving yourself right! Melchoir (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation
Hi, the reason I added a tag for clarification to the article is because the sentence needed clarification, not the citation.
 * "The stakes of the battle are estimated to include hundreds of millions of dollars lost yearly."

Disagreement among individuals about toilet paper orientation is not a "battle", and the meaning of the word 'stakes' is unclear in that sentence. The sentence should be changed such that 1) it doesn't try to be funny through hyperbole and 2) its meaning is obvious at first reading. Thanks. – Acdx (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see! I'll try to fix it in a little while. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Never mind, Ennen got to it already. Melchoir (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, congratulations on a good job with Toilet paper orientation, but you're violating the three-revert rule on it, with 4–5 partial or full reverts on July 13 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)... I'd just like to remind you to let go of your baby now that it's out of your userspace. ;-) Thanks. – Acdx (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me; I just re-read WP:3RR. I thought that the rule didn't apply to unrelated edits, but it does! Still, I'm not too concerned with my own behavior from a policy perspective. After all, the policy page does have an exemption for TFA, and this was similar: a lead DYK that picked up 3000 pageviews per hour.
 * Anyway, I appreciate the advice! Melchoir (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for the article about the toilet paper orientation-that makes Wikipedia unique. I enjoy reading the DYK section because of this. Thank you again-RFD (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thanks for your support! Melchoir (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Color preference
Do you really think this is a valid and practical use of article space? You may want to reconsider the color preference article all together and simply redirect the name space to "Color". Not only that, but you're canvasing articles which require no such linking to the article because the term and its usage are obvious to most (if not all) English-speaking readers given the context, as with this edit. You're also needlessly forcing a redirect with edits such as the previous one by not disambiguating links (i.e.  favorite color  rather than  favorite color ). Please be more cautious when wikilinking as you are doing, and only add the link when it's genuinely germane to the topic of the article, not just germane to the topic of a single sentence. Thanks for your attention. DKqwerty (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes. It provides enough context and references for other editors to be able to expand it. See Stub for the theory of such articles.
 * 2) Color preferences are related but distinct from color associations, and have their own literature. The two can be meaningfully compared and contrasted; they should not be confused.
 * 3) The meaning of the term may be obvious to most readers, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The purpose of a wikilink is to provide further information, not just a definition.
 * 4) Linking to redirects is far from needless -- it is preferred. See WP:R2D. "With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace redirect with redirect ." Note that, at some point in the future, Color preferences and Favorite color may become separate articles.
 * 5) You don't know how cautious I've already been. I avoided linking hundreds of articles where I felt that the link was not germane to the topic of the article. It is inevitable that some editors will disagree with my decision in certain cases.
 * 6) This edit summary was highly uncivil. See Civility, and please consider your attitude towards your fellow editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Dear Melchoir, thank you for your patience with me in working on improving Sefer ha-Temunah. It was a pleasure to get to know you. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I was thinking about leaving a note for you saying "thanks for your patience"! Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First Really Important Survey of American Habits.jpg
Hi, I noticed that Redtigerxyz removed this image from the toilet paper orientation page yesterday with the edit summary "improper fair use, book cover only fair use for the book article", and the picture in question seems to have been deleted already. Just wondered what your thoughts were on that, having read on the non-free content page under unacceptable uses; ''8.A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.'' It seems since the text in question is discussing the cover itself that Redtigerxyz's assertion that the article need be about the book specifically might be incorrect. Also Non-free_use_rationale_guideline, says an image that fails any part of WP:NFCC should only be deleted after seven days and informing the up-loader (which I'm assuming was AbbyKelleyite). Seems like the appearance of the question on the cover of a published book could've been useful in illustrating the notability of the debate. Probably isn't a big deal, just surprised me with the assertion that book covers could only be used for articles about the book specifically.Number36 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I agree with what you're saying. On the other hand, the image kind of sucks, it's too small to read the text in question at thumbnail size anyway, and the policy looks like kind of a gray area. So I'm not intending to argue either way. :-) Melchoir (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, to tell you the truth I don't even remember the image in question, it doesn't seem like it was crucial though and even less so if the text wasn't legible, was more just wondering about whether the reason for getting rid of it proffered in the summary was valid or not, I'm sure I've seen book covers used in articles other than the specific article on the book before. But as you say it seems like something of a grey area. Cheers Number36 (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
You might wish to get a piece of memory foam and place it on your desk before continuing. NW ( Talk ) 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note! As for the stress, no worries, I'm used to it. Haters gonna hate. :-) Melchoir (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Media Matters for America at WP:RS
Hello there. You recently participated in a discussion at WP:ANI regarding the systematic removal of Media Matters for America as a reliable source. I've started an RfC regarding MMfA, MRC, FAIR, Newsbusters etc. Please participate on the Reliable Sources Talk page here. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not. Melchoir (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

About Tehran
Hi, please stop. You're editing tehran and remove the montage of building in Tehran. If you see other capitals, you see the all of them have montage in the informations.Mahshidnadimi (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Montages are fine, but you're editing an old version of the article, and as a result, re-introducing errors by other editors. Please use the "Edit" link at the top of the page to make any changes. If you see the warning "You are editing an old revision of this page", stop and try again. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made this change for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tehran&diff=377086659&oldid=377085956 Melchoir (talk) 09:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation GAN
Hi SilkTork, thanks for Talk:Toilet paper orientation/GA1! I can see you've put a great deal of thought and research into the nomination already. I'm the major contributor, and I have comments on some of your comments... would you like me to list them inline, or somewhere else, or wait until you're done, or...?

Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Feel free to do what you are most comfortable with. If, as the review progresses, the thread of some discussions becomes entangled or confusing I may refactor - though that would be done only to ensure clarity, and anyone would be most welcome to refactor my refactoring if they saw a more helpful way of presenting the material. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 09:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow the issues I've raised to be dealt with or discussed. I normally contact other contributors, though nobody else has done anything significant on the article! Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 11:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've closed as a fail. Good luck with developing and renominating it.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR of 0.999...
nominated 0.999... for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

RfC: Partisan sources
I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gustaf Birger Anders Holm


The article Gustaf Birger Anders Holm has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No notability established, orphan article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Gustaf Birger Anders Holm for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Gustaf Birger Anders Holm, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gustaf Birger Anders Holm until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)