User talk:Melchoir/Archive5

Mathematical Induction
Do not revert me. I intended to work thru the whole article and fix the many problems it has. Part of that is converting it from 1-based to 0-based numbering for the natural numbers. In the article on natural numbers, they begin with 0, not 1. JRSpriggs 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you possibly say that about the article? Natural number makes extremely, painfully clear that the status of zero depends on personal convention. What's relevant to Mathematical induction is that it's an article that is read by non-mathematicians who may not be comfortable with 0 and who don't need any more blocks to their understanding. Melchoir 07:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Telling them that zero does not matter is a block to their understanding. JRSpriggs 07:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter to what? If you're trying to prove a statement that includes 0 then you need to consider 0, and if you aren't then you don't. The article never claimed otherwise. Melchoir 07:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have finished with it for tonight. I will check it over again Saturday night. Once you get past the section where it generalizes induction to any base, it does not matter any more. But I think that we should be consistent with the proper definition of the natural numbers. And that requires that we begin induction with zero. Usually the zero case is at least as simple as the case for one. Anyone who studies mathematics should be able to deal with zero. It was introduced with Arabic (actually Indian) numerals over a thousand years ago. JRSpriggs 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The use of the phrase "natural number" is not the real issue here. Starting induction from 0 is. While 0 as a number in arithmetic is well-understood enough, trivial cases and empty sets are unfamiliar to the average reader. You and I are comfortable with the empty sum, but what gives us the right to now say "Clearly, the sum of the first 0 positive numbers is 0"? Clearly? To whom? Melchoir 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in pointers to the articles empty sum and empty product at the appropriate places to try to remedy the problem you see. I feel that starting with zero is not optional because mathematical induction is not just some theorem or add-on, it is one of the axioms which define the natural numbers. See Peano axioms. JRSpriggs 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another point. The reason that I am working on this article is that it is in Category:Proof theory which is one of the categories which I am trying to maintain. Anyone who is sophisticated enough to be looking at that category should be able to handle empty sums, empty products, etc.. JRSpriggs 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wishful thinking. It may be inappropriate, but induction is often foisted upon unprepared students as a fundamental "method of proof", whatever that means-- students who may never in their lives have uttered "let" in the command tense. Students who don't even know what a set is, let alone what it means for one to be empty. The inclusion of any article in Category:Proof theory does not suddenly make it part of a high-level textbook on the subject; that's what Wikibooks is for. Melchoir 18:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

When I teach induction, I usually try to find time to do both the 'first case basis' and the `zeroth case basis' variant. (The actual starting number is of less importance. Sometimes, even starting at -1 is useful.)  In general, our beginners have trouble to follow the subject anyhow; and I don't have the illusion that most grasp the beauty, simpleness, and naturality of 'zeroth case bases'. However, a few do, which makes it worth it, I think.

Starting with an empty basis case sometimes is referred to as 'French induction', partly jokingly, partly affectionately referring to the style of the Bourbakists. I find indeed a great pleasure in the 'Il n'y a rien de preuve' (There is nothing here to prove) attitude. I think it would be a pitty not to offer the readers this experience; but I also realise that some will have troubles with it (as indeed some have with empty iterated operations in general). Performing both proof variants for the same statement may help a little.

Also note that the mention of empty sums within the more general summation article mainly stresses the use of degenerated sums in 'open' situations, where you want to cover many cases. This is very good, but might be complemented by a reference to its use in 'French induction'. It could be an idea to add a section in the iterated operator article on this, especially as the references to identity elements right now must seem a bit obscure to a non-expert. JoergenB 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thermodynamic temperature
Melchor: Would you please settle a dispute. I am contacting you because you took the time to welcome me when I first started editing. I will abide with whatever your judgment is. I've spent a bunch of time writing an article on Thermodynamic temperature. It has a preamble at the top that reads as follows:


 * This article deals with thermodynamic temperature and its underpinnings in heat energy and kinetic motions. It is intended to be suitable for a wide range of readers (such as high school students taking advanced science classes).  Whereas it wouldn’t be untrue to state that “temperature is the inverse of the derivative of entropy with respect to internal energy, and absolute zero is the point where this quantity becomes zero,” every effort has been made here to introduce complex thermodynamic issues while 1) using plain-speak, and 2) without sacrificing scientific rigor.

As I was writing this article, other contributors immediately resorted to the "business as usual" practice of quoting verbage—like as quoted above—straight out of the text books (and putting that stuff in the first two paragraphs of the article!) That isn't communicating clearly to a wide audience (which is tough); I feel it's just an ego-boosting display to others of how one understands mathematics and fancy words under the guise of “writing for an expert audience”. I feel this sort of practice is one of the major inadequacies of Wikipedia's technical articles if it is not is not balanced with plain-speak introductory text. The preamble seemed to have stopped these sort of contributions in their tracks. It alerts potential contributors that "Here's what we're trying to do: communicate clearly. Don't just copy stuff out of college text books; save it for the “Derivations” section. I believe it also alerts the reader in a nutshell as to precisely what to expect of the article. It's a welcome mat of sorts.

I think the proof is in the pudding. I placed all six graphics and made three of them myself. While writing the article, I corresponded with nearly a dozen different Ph.D.s (including those from NIST and IBM) in an effort to understand some of the quantum mechanical intricacies. Most are highly impressed with the work and one of the contacts (a Ph.D. from a college in England) linked to the site upon learning of it after I had contacted him.

You can visit the Discussion page to read the arguments on the other side of the issue.

Whatever you say. Greg L 03:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to agree with the other editors' removal of the hatnote. In general, I'm strongly opposed to using hatnotes for any purpose other than disambiguation. A well-written article should be sufficiently lucid and self-conscious that it needs no introduction in a separate voice.


 * As for the introductory text, I generally follow the principles of Lead section. The lead should be as accessible as possible, and at the same time, it should summarize the rest of the article. Ideally speaking, there shouldn't ever need to be a dispute over an introduction; after writing the body, the intro should write itself. I'm aware that in practice editors do haggle over the opening sentences, but it would be more productive to spend that energy elsewhere.


 * I'm speaking in generalities because I'm not too familiar with the article... hope that helps. Melchoir 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan image description page
I've expanded the description on commons:Image:Wikipe-tan full length.png and tried to make it mostly self-contained. Is this more of what you had in mind? -- Ned Scott 05:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it looks great! (Sorry, I was away on the 7th.) Melchoir 18:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi there: I tend to use you as a sounding board; I hope that's alright. A question; Given the current ridiculously high level of vandalism edits and stupid new articles, has anyone ever suggested that only registered editors should be allowed to edit? And (shock, horror) that registration might carry a fee? And if the answer is no, who should I approach with the suggestion? Doing new page patrolling, as I am sure you know, shows that perhaps two thirds of new pages are garbage, and are nearly all added by unregistered users.--Anthony.bradbury 01:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's get the links out of the way first: Village pump (policy) and Village pump (proposals) are good places for a proposal on policy. If you bring up this one, however, you will probably be dismissed with a link to Village pump (perennial proposals). Yeah, this proposal has been brought up before. The main reason that I generally oppose it (and similar vandalism-reduction measures) is that it would discourage participation by newcomers and therefore reduce recruitment of new community leaders.
 * That said, I'm not sure if there's a page detailing why we should accept the status quo. You might want to bring it up on the Village Pump just to hear more opinions. Melchoir 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Having looked at the articles in Village Pump it is clear that I would have been jumped on from a great height had I made the proposals which I would have liked to make. Is there NO way of curbing vandalism?--Anthony.bradbury 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the only change I've ever witnessed doing some good was the requirement that users register to create new articles. I think that helped a bit, and it shows that it isn't impossible to tighten the system. It would be nice if AOL assigned its users static IPs so that we could warn and block all the AOL vandals, but I guess that one is beyond our collective control. Sorry: I don't have any bright ideas, or I would have proposed them myself! Melchoir 15:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Uh... no, I didn't? Melchoir 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Center of Mass
I'm going to revert it to forces.

The reason is that the Net Gravitational Torque is zero. Which is to say the sum of the torques about the center of gravity is zero. Gravity acting on a body, or system of bodies, on its own does not induce a tendency to rotate, it just pulls on the whole body. It causes translation but not rotation. And that overall action can be modeled as a force acting at the center of gravity of the body. Each piece can be said to have a torque about the center, but the net is always zero, since the mass is equally distributed about the center. --Wolfram.Tungsten 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've clarified the statement. Please take the time to read the article, particularly "Rotation and centers of gravity". Melchoir 21:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think introducing torques in the introductory paragraph confuses the issue. Certainly the sum of the torques comes into play in the physics of it, but the sentence is unnecessarily confusing.  The CG is just the place where its weight can be said to be, if the body is in a uniform gravity field.  All the rest belongs in the otehr section. --Wolfram.Tungsten 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not if you want to calculate, for example, how fast a meter stick with one fixed end will fall. In that case, the CM model gets you the right gravitational torque but the wrong moment of inertia. Oh, it's easy to just say that the mass "acts" as if it were at a point, but not so easy to turn that into a helpful, factual statement. If you don't want to deal with torques, it's better to say nothing at all; I've deleted the latter half of the problem sentence. Melchoir 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Prosonic
Thanks for the help. I attached a bunch of sources, not formatted correctly as I'm unsure of the way to properly do so for web links, forums, etc. Tremspeed 06:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, formatting is easy... but I'm afraid discussion forums aren't quite up to Reliable sources, the the Fender webpage is a little skimpy. Got anything else? Melchoir 06:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

NITYA SEVA
Thank you very much for your help. As I can see tags are needed. Unfortunately I don´t know what to do and how to do it. Could you please help me. Thanks. Claus D. von der Fink, 20.08.2006 NITYA SEVA


 * Sure! My first suggestion would be to rewrite the article using reliable third-party sources that describe your organization and its work. I see that the current article is copied from http://www.nityaseva.privat.t-online.de/; this isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article that aims to be verifiable and neutral in its coverage. Okay? Melchoir 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I´ve copied the english text from our homepage because my english is not so good. The German text was written by me and translated from my Indian wife Asha. What kind of text would you prefer? I just came back from our shelters and my wife and our daughter will arrive in Germany on 25.08.2006. What kind of article would be good enough to be placed in Wikipedia.org? If you want you can send a mail to NITYA.SEVA@t-online.de so that you can ask me for any needed details. I am a German Police Commissioner and I am looking in all my free time for the needies in India since 17 years. Please feel free to ask me about any details you want to know about NITYA SEVA. Thanks for your help and your friendly manners. Regards, Claus D. von der Fink, NITYA SEVA NITYA SEVA 22:22, 20 August 2006

Hi Melchoir, please let me know what I can further do so that my article will be published in Wikipedia. I´´ll do my best. Thanks. Regards, Claus D. von der Fink, NITYA SEVA NITYA SEVA, 00:02, 23 August 2006


 * Well, I'd like to emphasize the importance of finding other people who have written about the organization. Even if these sources are in German or one of the Indian languages, for example a local newspaper, that's fine. We shouldn't be copying them, but we can use such sources to write our own summary of their information.


 * The reason I emphasize sources is the pair of Wikipedia policies Verifiability and No original research. There's one other important content policy: Neutral point of view. It means that an article shouldn't sound too promotional, and it should aim to state the facts plainly, even for the most sympathetic subjects. I would be happy to work with you to improve the style and tone of the article, since I am a native English speaker, and I appreciate that it might be hard for you to anticipate how your words sound to native ears.


 * Actually, speaking of local newspapers, I just found this, from India Today. I'll try working it into the article when I have some time. Meanwhile, please stay on the lookout for your own sources! Melchoir 23:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. Most of the articles in the newspapers about NITYA SEVA are written in German. Here is one more article in English But it is an old one. Following some more details about the aims of NITYA SEVA: Support for health-care, culture and education for the under-privileged in India,building educational and career prospects, with an international outlook and tolerance, developing international understanding and compassion, especially for the needy in India. Responsibilities of the NITYA SEVA Society: Support for Indian organizations,emergency aid during crisis, building and maintenance of educational places and seats of learning, particulary for children and teenagers with meagre opportunities, creating awareness for health-care and preventing disease, including support for programmes to maintain a high standard of health, special diet programmes for groups and individuals facing scarcity due to personal crisis and support for individuals and families, not able to fend for themselves.

In the English version of our flyer we have written: In November 1999 in Bhopal / India, Claus D. and Asha von der Fink have established an association, officially registered under the name NITYA SEVA SOCIETY.

True to its name the aims of the association are to give selfless and continuous help to the disadvantaged sections of the society, not only for their social and financial upliftment, but also in the areas of health awareness and support during crises. Preservation of the environment is also an area, for which NITYA SEVA has pledged to extend all support.

NITYA SEVA SOCIETY runs Project AASHIRWAD for the needy street children in Bhopal. The society is specially looking after the needs of the children, who live on the railway platforms and along the railway lines and survive on the food thrown away by the travellers.

The "Railway Platform Children", mostly with no relatives, are between the ages of 5 and 18 years. They are malnourished, suffer not only from serious skin and other diseases, but also nurse a badly hurt soul. Among these children are drug and alcohol addicts and also children who are forced into prostitution.

NITYA SEVA Society takes these children under its protection, gives them a home and support for a better future.

The Society at present is running two homes for the street, slum and platform children in Bhopal and provides them a roof over their heads and a home social, emotional and physical security and opportunities for further development a comfortable sleeping place facilities for washing and bathing regular medical support proper clothes nourishing warm meals facilities for school education and vocational training pportunities for a meaningful life within the group and participation in civic activities, and to develop an open mind and a respect for different cultures and religions.

If you want you can send an email to NITYA.SEVA@t-online.de so that I can give the needed informations to you. On friday my wife will be back and it will be a lot of help because she speakes fluent English. Thanks again. We´ll stay in contact. Claus D. von der Fink, NITYA SEVA, 21:58, 23 August 2006

Hi Melchior, I have added a link on the bhopal side but it was delete. Other associations and links you will find there. What is wrong to add a link there? NITYA SEVA SOCIETY was founded in Bhopal. It runs two children´s homes for street-, slum- and platform children. The association is well known there and receives a lot of help from many Bhopal people. Best wishes, Claus D. von der Fink NITYA SEVA 11.52, 24 August 2006

interesting coincidence
Hi, I noticed that 213.84.172.15 added defamation warnings to both of our user pages (which wiki alf helpfully removed). Charming, no? And a bit of a suspicous coincidence, seeing as we both recently expressed doubt about the tempometer article, which rpba seems to be attached to..... --Bmk 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. Charming, yes... Melchoir 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Starbucks Workers Union
Hi Melchoir. You voted to delete this article. I have rewritten it. If you want to look at it again, that's OK, and if not, that's fine by me as well. JChap2007 11:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for the notice! Melchoir 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hello Melchoir. I'm surprised to cruise past your userpage and notice that you aren't an admin yet? (that's why you didin't have an entry at User:Blnguyen/RfA) - you have good article contribs and help with AfDs and other cleanups. Are you willing? I can tee up one for you. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the one hand, I'm willing and eager, and I really appreciate the offer!
 * On the other hand, I've got a dormant dispute on my mind involving a few prominent editors. These are people who command a lot of respect, generally including mine, but who aren't on board with certain editorial norms that are, in my experience, uncontested among the greater Wikipedia population. I think I've lined up enough resources to resolve the dispute constructively and demonstrate my ideals by example, Featuring my first article in the process. But... I've procrastinated because I expect it to be stressful. Perhaps I should ask for the mop after I'm done? Melchoir 04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, I think I'll start today! Melchoir 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll get it done by the start of the 25th. That's a yes? Blnguyen | rant-line 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... I'm afraid it's a no. I'm thinking about the question about stress-causing conflicts, and the one I've been talking about is the natural answer, since it's caused me the most stress on Wikipedia. I'd rather be able to say that I solved the conflict and learned something from it than admit that it's still in progress. And while I've been working on it today, I won't be done for at least a week. Thanks so much for offering, though! Melchoir 04:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You put an OR tag on Fibonacci number ...
... so I went to the talk page, like the tag says, to see what the problem is, and I couldn't find anything. Which part of the article do you think is OR - the bit above your tag, the bit below it, or something else ? Gandalf61 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry about that. See the talk page now. Melchoir 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UNSW medical school
Greetings. I was looking through Copyright problems, and found that you had listed UNSW medical school as a copyright violation. Although it may have been a copyvio when you listed it, it looks to me like all the violating parts of the article have been removed, so I'm restoring it to its last state. If you think it's still a copyvio, let me know. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that old thing? It's not that it's a copyvio so much as its history is a copyvio, and that still ought to be removed. If you think it's not a big deal, I'm not going to complain. Melchoir 14:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice please
Hi; I spent some time yesterday adding subst:prod tags to a large number of proprietary products marketted by Wal-Mart. In my view they were clearly advertisements. They have now been unprodded, and collected together in a single article which I can only describe as a shopping catalogue. List of Wal-Mart Brands is its name. Is it, in your view, suitable for tagging?--Anthony.bradbury 19:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can provide you with a straight opinion on this one... on the one hand, if a thing isn't notable enough for its own article, it might not even belong on a list. On the other hand, the list is a minor concession that rightly discourages users from starting up the stubs again, as SchuminWeb says at the talk page. And the list, taken as a whole, might add some value to our Wal-Mart coverage. As a political expedient, I wouldn't prod the list, if only because I'm sure that someone would remove it, and I wouldn't be passionate enough to take it to AfD. Melchoir 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do nothing. Thanks. But it's still a shopping catalogue. Incidentally, you ought to accept the nomination for admin. Yes, I have read your comments.--Anthony.bradbury 22:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes a shopping catalogue is the least of several evils. Thanks for the sentiment -- it means a lot, coming from someone I've helped -- but I still don't feel comfortable about the conflict. Anyway, I'm sure you'll get a chance to vote for me later. And for that matter, at some point I'll get a chance to vote for you! Melchoir 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

At some point, when we're both ready, I look forward to both votes.--Anthony.bradbury 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Wikid77
I see you've had a previous run in with this user. This user has recently been making contentious edits to Hurricane Katrina, and I'd like to learn more about your run-in with the user for a possible WP:RFC. – Chacor 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess my major complaints are that he (sue me, but I have a hard time envisioning a female) was too quick to accuse "vandalism" and too quick to revert edits if he didn't agree with some small part of them. This made it tiring and frustrating to work with him or to edit the articles he thought he owned. At least at the time, he also seemed unaware of some very common conventions, and while that's certainly forgivable, it didn't help. Melchoir 16:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers, sounds like what's happened at Hurricane Katrina. He's been blocked 27 hours, so hopefully he uses it to calm down and read some Wiki policy, and that there won't be a need for an RFC. I'll keep you posted about any possible RFC. Cheers! – Chacor 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, and good luck! Melchoir 16:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy
Hi there; quick question. Occasionally new editors remove speedy delete tags. What is the template warning them not to? I know about drmafd, but it is not quite appropriate.--Anthony.bradbury 18:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's . A whole bunch of these templates appear at Template messages/User talk namespace. Melchoir 18:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks.--Anthony.bradbury 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I printed it out. Do you realise that it's 29 pages? That has got to show true dedication!--Anthony.bradbury 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's nuts! Melchoir 00:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Protect Pluto
Greetings friend. I'm a long-time wiki-user, but just recently created an account. I've been following the progress of the "definition of a planet" article. I created the "Project Protect Pluto". I had intended it to be a page listing websites objecting to, and petitioning against, the dropping of pluto from planetary status. I imagine that you deleted my article in the interests of keeping wikipedia an elegant and wonderful resource. Could you be a little more specific about why the page was deleted? I have seen many lists on wikipedia, some of which were no more detailed than the page I generated. The PPP title was just a name to give the "internet vs pluto's demotion".


 * Well, technically speaking, I didn't delete it; I merely put a prod tag on it explaining my reasons for why I thought it should be deleted. Shortly afterward, an admin deleted the page, essentially for the same reasons. I would have preferred to leave the tag up for a few days in the interest of transparency, but I don't fault the admin at all.
 * My specific reasoning was that, first of all, "Project Protect Pluto" is not a real organization. We could get all philosophical about what that means, but the bottom line is that the page's purpose wasn't to describe the organization anyway. It did contain some external links, and while I'm sure they're informative, Wikipedia is not a web directory, and no page should link to websites as its primary goal. That leaves only a couple of rationales remaining: perhaps you might have wanted to provide a rebuttal to the main article(s) about Pluto's status. If so, you're welcome to edit them in a neutral and verified manner; but creating a new article is strongly discouraged per Content forking. And finally, as the admin noted, the page contained a request for further information, which is also considered inappropriate.
 * Does that help? Melchoir 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is very helpful. Thank you.


 * You're welcome! Melchoir 21:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Exit Zero, Floor Zero, Year Zero
Greetings. You have tagged my recent contributions to Exit Zero and Floor Zero with a complaint about the neutrality of these contributions, and an indication that they may contain original research or unverified claims. I am surprised that you did not also tag my similar contribution to Year Zero.

I am frankly mystified.

Where is the absence of neutrality? The only statement I made that was even close to an opinion was "Both systems [ordinal and cardinal] are fully acceptable and correct." Do you disagree with this? Does anybody?

As for original research, I respectfully disagree. Ordinal vs cardinal confusions have been well known and well documented for centuries, most often in the context of dates (e.g. first century AD). Exit, floor, and date numbering systems are merely three examples, and to the best of my knowledge they are completely uncontroversial. A fourth example, which I have not addressed in Wikipedia, is the use of zero-based array indexing in C and C++ (array subscripts in computer languages before C began with 1, an ordinal usage, but C indexes begin with 0, a cardinal usage).

The Wikipedia article Century — which I did not write or edit — makes much the same point as I did in Exit Zero, Floor Zero, and Year Zero.

If you have a problem with any of this, I will be glad to discuss it further. — Aetheling 18:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess this is as good a place as any. From Exit 0:
 * "Some people are puzzled by "Exit 0" signs, because it seems to them that the first exit ramp onto a highway should be named "Exit 1". And yet no one is puzzled by the fact that the leftmost marker on a ruler is zero, not one."
 * No evidence is given either that some people are puzzled by the signs, or that no one is puzzled by rulers. I seriously doubt you'll ever find a reliable source for the latter claim. The close proximity of these two sentences and their wording, including "and yet", clearly suggests that those people should not be puzzled, which is a POV judgment. Worse, the tone of the entire section is argumentative and appears to address the reader, in effect saying you should not be surprised. For example:
 * "No one will be confused if they keep in mind..."
 * This really sounds like you wanted to write "You will not be confused if you keep in mind..."
 * "In the latter case, the starting point must be labelled zero..."
 * Must? Says who?
 * "Both systems are fully acceptable and correct."
 * Acceptable to whom, and correct according to whom? Yes, I happen to agree with the sentiment, but whose sentiment is it?
 * Most of the same points apply to Floor numbering. So that's the POV angle. The OR is simply this: there is no reference cited that connects these everyday issues to ordinal and cardinal numbers. If the confusion is well-documented, that's encouraging, but documentation doesn't do us much good if we don't cite it! Melchoir 18:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am relieved. I think all of those concerns can be addessed. I will take a stab at it within the week. — Aetheling 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great to hear. Thanks for your patience! Melchoir 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Administrator
Hi there; I have an editor who I have warned twice, and someone else has warned him once. Obviously, my warning is essentially toothless as I have no power to block him. How do I summon an administrator urgently?--Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would be Administrator intervention against vandalism, better known as WP:AIV. Usually action gets taken within a couple of minutes. Melchoir 22:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Point
That was a good point about Science not requiring perfect theories being a strength rather than a weakness, I'd never thought about it like that. Rentwa 10:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks-- I don't think it had occurred to me either until I had to say it! Melchoir 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it was you who said somewhere about the balance 'not knowing' what fluid it was immersed in - I used to say 'the coin doesn't remember' when trying to convince morons pupils that tossing 99 heads in a row does not make a tail any more likely on the 100th throw. Rentwa 18:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Yeah, I'm all for calling out the stupidity of physical objects to dispel magical thinking. Of course, when the objects do become intelligent and rise up against their masters, we'd both better hope they have short memories! Melchoir 18:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Photon FAC/PR Comments
Melchoir, I just finished an SPR of the Photon article today and I appreciate you stopping by to offer suggestions on further edits we can make to get Photon to FA status. You made a comment on experimental constraints of charge on the photon and while we all (physicists and non-) take for granted that the photon is chargeless, it was an interesting exercise to see if any experiments have been done to put an upper bound on what the charge of a photon would be. There is a paper here that does just that. A bit obscure for the non-specialist but interesting nonetheless and I'll put it up as a reference in the main article. Thanks again for your suggestions. We'll get to work right away on the big items! Cheers, Astrobayes 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem; I got the idea from the Particle Data Group pocketbook anyway! See for a critical view of charge limits, and maybe  for current attempts at improving the bound. I don't know what we can say for certain, but the topic is worth addressing. Melchoir 23:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Query
Melchoir; do something for me. Look at an article entitled Edward Craven-Walker. You will see the problem.--Anthony.bradbury 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. There appears to be an explanation at Template talk:People-stub, but I can't trace the history. I'll just fix up the article, I guess. Melchoir 05:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I obviously could have reverted the tag, but in my innocence thought it would be mega-vandalism.--Anthony.bradbury 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

History of writing ancient numbers
I created History of writing numbers but I made the title too broad and the title overlaps the subject matter of History of numbers and Numeral system. So it was tagged as a merge candidate. I conceded that. It should have had a more restricted title such as History of writing ancient numbers so I created a new page that is about how writing ancient and pre-historic numbers began. It is not about numbers in general; it is not about mathematics; it is not about numerals. It is about how archaic writing began. There is a lot more I expect to add to History of writing ancient numbers once I create .jpg files for the archaic numbers signs. Greensburger 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The proposed merger was effectively done a week ago when I created History of writing ancient numbers from History of writing numbers I merged some of the material in History of writing numbers to Numeral system. I reduced History of writing numbers to a stub that explains this. Then I accidently erased history of writing ancient numbers but I then reverted it. Sorry for the confusion. All that remains is to redirect the stub to Numeral system Greensburger 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "History of writing ancient numbers" makes no sense. There is no such thing as an "ancient number". Melchoir 21:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The fine distinction between "number" and "numeral" is one that most people don't make. George Ifrah, one of my references, titled his 600 page book "The Universal History of Numbers" (not numerals).  If "numbers" were changed to "numerals" in the title of the Wiki page, most people who do a search would not find it because they will be searching on "number" or "numbers".  Maybe I should create a "History of writing ancient numerals" that redirects to "History of writing ancient numbers".  Greensburger 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So bypass the issue. What's wrong with History of numeration? Melchoir 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A google search on "numeration" yielded a respectable 754 thousand hits. But "numbers" yielded an overwhelming 1.12 billion hits.  To put it another way, if 2,000 people will be interested in reading the "history of writing ancient numbers" page, 1,999 will use "numbers" in the Wiki search and 1 will use "numeration".  Greensburger 00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you insist on "number", what's wrong with History of writing numbers anyway? Melchoir 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Davilla proposed that History of writing numbers be merged with Numeral system because "writing numbers" includes modern numerals. I conceded that "writing numbers" was too broad and I solved the problem by moving the "history of writing numbers" content to a more restricted title History of writing ancient numbers because my focus was ancient writing.  Greensburger 15:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with such an overlap. For one article (History of writing numbers) to assume the topic of a section within another (Numeral system) is actually encouraged, because it simplifies the relationship between articles and helps the reader find content. Has Davilla been pointed to Summary style? Melchoir 16:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition
Hi. No, I was talking about when the article was one long overview of addition to summation. This is a bad example - somewhere between this and what it is currently. -Ste|vertigo 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay then. Melchoir 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A Question
Hi there; I hope you've noticed that I have not bothered you for well over a week. A question, if you would. Edits are either text additions, talk additions or tags (speedy, prod, wikify, clarify, etc). Other than manually, is there any way of counting and differentiating the edits a specific editor has made?--Anthony.bradbury 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think essjay's tool differentiates edits by namespace, although it can't tell the difference between content and tags. (Since it's a brute-force method, it should be used sparingly though.) Melchoir 23:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As you say, it does not differentiate tags from minor edits, but it seems to do everything else.--Anthony.bradbury 15:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Orange County Department of Aging
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Orange County Department on Aging article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Melchoir 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have rephrased the article. Thanks for the hint. --Ineffable3000 23:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, good hunting! Melchoir 23:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Mind-N-Magick
You prod'd Mind-N-Magick. However, the article's creator removed the prod. It was restored, but that isn't allowed per WP:PROD so it's not illegible for prod. I've sent it to AFD. You may want to participate in any discussion there. -- JLaTondre 00:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Melchoir 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Eighth Wonder of the World
Hi -- I noticed you voted to delete Eighth Wonder of the World. I just wanted to let you know that I've gone through the list and rigorously cited as many as the entries as I could and tagged the rest with ; I was hoping you could take a look at it and perhaps reconsider your vote, as the changed article drastically changes the conditions under which you voted to delete it. Thanks! Dylan 04:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Melchoir 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Block
Hi there; just had my third episode of brief block; again, I am certain, not down to any action of mine. See my previous comments. Do you see why I'm paranoid?--Anthony.bradbury 09:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And again; that makes four.--Anthony.bradbury 09:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember this problem... well, at least it's not happening every day, right? I don't have any new ideas, but you can always try WP:VP(T). Melchoir 18:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost every day, though. Just happened again - same admin (JzG).--Anthony.bradbury 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

God's algorithm
I noticed that you put on the God's algorithm page. I haven't workd on the article, but I did read it maybe a week before you put the template up. I don't remember anything deserving of the template then, and I don't see anything on the Talk page. Would you clarify your issues, please? I came across the page via the math "Pages needing attention". CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking through the page history, the article didn't even exist three days before I edited it! If you saw the talk page, did you read Articles for deletion/God's algorithm? The article was rewritten immediately before I added the tag, and a few editors were still worried about whether the article accurately reflects the literature. Melchoir 07:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I read a page, I was pretty sure it was on Wikipedia, which talked about God's algorithm. I didn't see a nomination for deletion and don't recall any kind of cleanup tag. Perhaps it was under another article... maybe Optimal solutions for Rubik's Cube (did God's algorithm ever redirect there?).


 * Regardless, I've looked over the article and I don't see any or factual inaccuracies.  I do notice the lack of citations (maybe I'll move some over from the page above), but that has its own tag on the page.  Regardless, any problems you have with the page's accuracy and/or OR should be mentioned in the Talk, because without it others might not know what to fix.  I certainly don't.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Series / Seriei
I actually find it interesting that you would revert such a minor change to spelling, and one that goes a great length towards clarification. The ambiguity inherent in a word such as 'series' being used for both the singular and plural does not mesh well with the usual precision inherent in mathematical articles.

I may mention that Newton's "Principia Mathematica" used the word 'seriei' extensively. There is quite possibly no more authoritative work on mathematics using the words 'series/seriei' and I thus consider your reversions baseless. Dbsanfte 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh... see your talk page. Melchoir 04:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your user page says you hold an interest in Physics. I have seen an eminent example of inertia as demonstrated by your views on something as simple as the spelling of a word. My ideas add a precision to the articles hitherto not present, and are grammatically correct. Should you have any argument as to why a latin word should not use its own latin plural, as do so many hundreds of other examples such as formula/formulae/formulas, nucleus/nuclei, curriculum/curricula, or greek criterion/criteria, you may voice them tomorrow when I unrevert the articles in question. Dbsanfte 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that I have not told you my views on how the word should be spelled. My opinion is just as irrelevant as yours. I have only pointed out how the word is spelled. On Wikipedia, that's all that matters.
 * Please do not attempt to insert your alternate spellings again. If I do not revert them, I assure you that someone else will. If you sincerely wish enter a productive discussion, there are many options: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (mathematics), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, Talk:Series (mathematics), and Reference desk/Language might be good places to start a discussion. I think your chances for convincing Wikipedia to use "seriei" are zero, but if you're serious then you should try. Melchoir 04:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lilith confusion
On the Lilith (moon) article, you very astutly pointed out:

''The first paragraph mentions a Lagrangian point; the second mentions an empty focus. These are very, very far away; which is it? Or is "Lilith" a generic name for all second-moon theories? I don't understand what's going on here.''

The elipse stuff is straight from an astrologer's notes on their site. The Lagrangian point stuff is more complicated.

The reason I have the Lagrangian bit in there is because Lilith is often related to Antichthon, a hypothetical planet on a diametricly opposed orbit to earth. (It hides on the other side of the sun at all times.)

The Lilith situation is identical, except that she hides behind the moon. The Antichthon article seems to indicate that this is called a stable Lagrangian orbit. I looked on the Lagrangian point page and I can't figure out what the hell they are talking about. If you know how to clarify these ideas about orbits where stuff hides behind other stuff, could you please do so on Lilith (hypothetical moon)? Mrwuggs 21:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replied at the talk page. Melchoir 22:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Status
Melchoir, I need some honest, straight-from -the-shoulder advice. I have been here six months; I have about 3,000 edits, including about 100 full articles and I don't know how many main article additions and assorted taggings. I have, as I hope is becoming known, a serious dedication to the improvement and extension and protection of our encyclopedia. If I were to be nominated for Admin, do you think I would win the vote? Honestly now.--Anthony.bradbury 19:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, that's a hard question. I'd lean toward yes. Your experience and dedication are self-evident at this point. Your talk page indicates that you have attracted attention as a working member of the community, and everyone seems to react to you positively. I am assuming that a review of your use of speedy deletion tags will prove that you can and should be trusted with the ability to delete articles yourself. And I'm pretty sure that the trend among voters is to look for editors who have experience in article improvement (besides editorial and community-related tasks). Melchoir 19:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. So what do I do? I believe that my use of speedy deletion tags would stand inspection.--Anthony.bradbury 00:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, beyond the directions at WP:RfA, I have no idea. Melchoir 01:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Having looked through WP:RfA I don't think I'm ready yet. Another couple of months, probably.--Anthony.bradbury 13:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mind if I ask why? I could use some more perspectives on what makes people unready for the process. Melchoir 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at the answers prospective admins have made to the four standard questions, it immediately became obvious to me that I am as yet not adequately familiar with all of the various WP files. Yes, i can tell when an article should go; yes, I can tell when an editor needs blocking - or just warning. But i cannot as yet use the jargon as freely as I need to. When I do go for it, I hope you will support me, though I also know that canvassing support is an almost automatic rejection.--Anthony.bradbury 14:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I still think that you should accept nomination. How about it? I will happily nominate you if you agree.--Anthony.bradbury 14:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty close to finishing my self-assigned task; 0.999... is on its way to Featured status, and my opposition turned out to be only a single editor who wouldn't focus on content. I ought to be willing pretty soon. It'd be great if you could nominate me, although we should probably find out if Blnguyen wants to claim priority on that; I don't know what the etiquette is. Melchoir 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When you are willing, I am more than happy to nominate you. Let me know. When you do so, I will liaise with User:Blnguyen (who I think we have spelled wrong).--Anthony.bradbury 23:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, he is spelled right. Just has no user page.--Anthony.bradbury 23:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, he's on Wikibreak, he says. So it's down to me. Let me know if you want to go for it.--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Fifteen times now on my userpage, so I must be doing somrthing right!--Anthony.bradbury 12:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just need to learn how to spell "something".--Anthony.bradbury 12:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice! I haven't been counting myself, but I don't think I have quite that many. Maybe about half. Melchoir 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I update the number as and when it happens. Sixteen now. Perhaps you do not have as high a new page patroller profile?--Anthony.bradbury 22:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Zone of Immunity
Going right back to your first message to me, I have realised on reviewing my talk page that I should have quoted as a reference 'Principia Mathematica' by Sir Isaac Newton, which can be used to decribe exactly the path followed by a naval artillery shell. But it might have been seen as smart-assed.:-)--Anthony.bradbury 22:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

0.999...
Hi Melchior,

Congratulations on the FA! I'm currently celebrating Maraba Coffee, my first FA as well. Sorry I never came back to the article - I somehow never had enough time, but it made it without me anyway and I think most of my points were addressed... SteveRwanda 06:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's good then. Congrats on your own! Melchoir 02:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

hoteltravelcheck.com
Thank you for your note about hoteltravelcheck.com. I kept getting a box indicating that I could re-write it in hopes of keeping it from being deleted - so that is why I have been re-submitting it. I emailed wikipedia help today to try to get some input and then re-submitted after I received a reply back. If you have any direction to give me how to improve the article, I would greatly appreciate it. I am obviously new at this and just trying to figure out how to do it the right way (as it seems I have somehow figured out the wrong way). Thanks for your help. 02:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:WEB and WP:CORP. If you can't find multiple non-trivial published works on the subject, then it's hopeless, no matter how well you package an article. Melchoir 02:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Melchoir, go to requests for adminship/Melchoir. Good luck.--Anthony.bradbury 21:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks! Melchoir 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I have done it right, but it is the first RfA nomination I have made. If it's done wrong, please don't be bashful about telling me.--Anthony.bradbury 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's not right, that reinforces my comment about my unreadiness at present for the same elevation.--Anthony.bradbury 22:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, it looks fine from here. Melchoir 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Sorry I haven't been checking my watchlist particularly carefully lately. I am supposed to be on indefinite wikibreak, but I am unable to keep my vows and have only been on a go-slow and didn't even notice ANthony's proposal for 10 days. Do you mind if I slip something in late? Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly won't complain! Go ahead, go nuts. I've never tried to take a wikibreak except when I've been unusually busy out in real life, and I don't think I'd do very well! Melchoir 00:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's done. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 02:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a lot of work. Thank you! Melchoir 02:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Moss Agate
Melchoir, it seems it to me you know alot about minerals. What can you tell me about Moss Agate because I would like to add to the Moss Agate article. Neptunekh 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Er... actually, I know very little about minerals! But just looking at the Polish article gives me an idea: you could add the physical characteristics, like hardness and density. Also, reading the article, the statement "It occurs in many locations" could be expanded upon. Good luck! Melchoir 03:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Adminship
You are clearly, as I expected, attracting landslide support. Although the decision is not yet in, let me be the first to ofer you well-deserved congratulations.--Anthony.bradbury 22:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and good luck with what looks like it could make WP:100. Confusing Manifestation 02:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and... woohoo! Melchoir 05:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Help
Melchoir, when you have a moment, could you please review my recent converation with User:AzaToth and, if you feel it appropriate, make a comment to him?--Anthony.bradbury 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, it's sorted.--Anthony.bradbury 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh... okay! Melchoir 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Guru or life?
Or a different Melchior? Anomo 22:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the one! The first time I played through that game, I thought the name was spelled "Melchoir", and I thought it sounded cool. Melchoir 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dangerbox on deletion review
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dangerbox. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.241.57 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't. Anyway, the review seems to have ended. Melchoir 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyvios
Hi, thanks for tagging Election of 1866 as a copyvio. Just so you know, if something is an obvious copyvio and you catch it within 48 hours of creation (like you did with that one) it is eligble for speedy deletion. Just tag it with db-copyvio. Thanks! -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA
I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:
 * Administrators' reading list
 * Administrators' how-to guide
 * Administrators' Noticeboard
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents
 * Administrators' Noticeboard for Three-revert rule violations

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 23:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Melchoir! Have fun with the mop!  Glad to see you as an administrator! — Mets 501  (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Melchoir. Let me just say that the numerical results do not do justice to what you have contributed to Wikipedia and the ideas you bring to discussions. Well done. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Melchoir! Have fun with your new tools. If you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nish kid  64  01:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Congrat's! And feel free to use that baseball bat. JungleCat    talk / contrib  03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again congratulations on a very well-deserved promotion. I hope to join you in a few months.--Anthony.bradbury 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! So, I'm feeling a little awkward about all the attention. What's the range of acceptable etiquette on thanking supporters? Melchoir 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Melchoir; when you get back, could you send instructions on archiving talk-page? Preferably in baby talk. I have tried to follow the WP:ARCHIVE page, but when I go into edit mode my page won't highlight. I know I'm doing something wrong but don't know what: and as my user:page is now 105 Kb the problem is becoming acute.--Anthony.bradbury 22:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I use the copy-paste method, so in your case I'd edit User_talk:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1. I'm not sure what you mean by pages not highlighting... could you clarify? Melchoir 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I quote from WP:ARCHIVE:

1. Click on edit this page for the talk page you wish to archive. 2. In the edit box, highlight all the text you want to archive, right-click and then select cut. etc.

While I claim to be literate, I have never claimed to be computer-literate. Where do create User:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1, and how do move my talk into it? I think I could create the sub-page and move everything, but I prefer the idea of cut and paste.--Anthony.bradbury 18:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't have to create User:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1 in order to use User talk:Anthony.bradbury/Archive1. You should be able to click on the latter link, and it'll take you to this editing page:, where you can paste in the archival material and hit "Save page". Melchoir 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, youve made the archive link for me. Now how do I put the earliest 80% of my talk into it? Sorry to be dense.--Anthony.bradbury 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, using my method, you would simultaneously edit your talk page and edit the archive page. From the talk page, select whatever you want to move, and cut it. In the archive page, delete the redirect code and paste in the material. Preview both pages to make sure that they look right, and save them both. Melchoir 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Got two complete copies of the same page now. Am I allowed to delete one?--Anthony.bradbury 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's OK. As has happened before, I've cracked it while waiting for our time difference to bring you on line.--Anthony.bradbury 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay! Melchoir 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

0.999... = 1
I've never seen such a crisp representation as you've done with Image:999 Perspective.png. :-) --hydnjo talk 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! At first I attempted to use the perspective tool in Photoshop and Illustrator, but there's just no replacement for POV-Ray! Melchoir 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on that fine piece of work. Enjoy.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on this one Melchoir, a fantastic amount of work, and you never gave up! 137.205.8.2 09:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all of you! Melchoir 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

0.999... stewardship
Hey there, I'm not sure what timezone you're in, but I wanted to let you know that I'll be watching the article for 6 hours or so while I go about my business. Y'know, so you can sleep if needs be. Seriously, awesome stewardship of the article. I had no idea it'd become a FA when I first started it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and a toast to sustaining each other's work! I just might take you up on that. Melchoir 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

By all means. Point me in the right direction and I'll do what I can. :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have no magical insights, unfortunately. You seem to be doing fine anyway. Melchoir 13:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...eh, who really needs sleep, anyway? Melchoir 15:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)