User talk:Melchoir/Archive8

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Slow Children Crossing
What's interesting is you deleted Slow Children Crossing for copyright violations in 2 minutes yet when the licenses go up and everything clears it's been 3 days and still nothing but a huge copyright violation statement on their page. It seems backwards to operate in this fashion. Now the group is upset and the website owner is wondering why he even included the license in the first place per your request. It would seem in good faith for you to check the new links and put their page back up.


 * Copyright problems takes 7 days. As for whether anyone should be upset here, note Conflict of interest. Melchoir (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Copyright
Per your request the website www.qthequestion.com/?p=4861 has now put up the text “Re-use is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0″ in the first paragraph. Please revert this Wikipedia page back to what it was. There are no copyright violations taking place


 * Someone else will get to it in due time. I for one have no intention to interact further with you. Good luck with the others, Melchoir (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
I do own the copyright to this photo of Slow Children Crossing which you deleted. You can't continue to take this photo down on a hunch when I shot them. Also you keep erasing the biographical info for Slow Children Crossing. Just re-word it if necessary. I have cited, re-cited and referenced everything to my knowledge.

Copyright
Melchoir, could you answer a question for me? If a published document on a medium other than wikipedia does not assert copyright, can it be transcluded into wikipedia as an article? Or does copyright exist automatically unless specifically waived?--Anthony.bradbury 23:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's the second answer: copyright exists automatically upon distribution. Melchoir 01:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. It's alright, I have not done nor do I want to. I came across a discussion on this point and found that I was unsure of the answer.--Anthony.bradbury 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Help with paste of picture
Hi Melchoir! Thank you for your kind letter. I would like to displace the picture (plus related text) on the FAST ION CONDUCTOR page. How can I load the picture? Is it possible that you made the template for it? (Despotuli 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to. What picture? Melchoir 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


 * That should do it! Melchoir 18:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks for the cooperation! (Despotuli (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

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

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

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

Oh, that pic is of me, my boyfriend is a photographer and he took one of me for his project, i wouldnt have named it "porn.jpg", but thats what he saved it under on my comp. Why? isnt this place not censored? Mcrazychick (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, this place isnt censored? Mcrazychick (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...True, it isn't, but a title like that is just begging for unwanted attention and abuse. It also makes we wonder whether it really is of you, since it is hard to imagine why you (or he) would have named it that in the first place, much less exposed it on the Internet.
 * If you want to avoid explaining the picture a million times, you should probably request the present file to be deleted, and re-upload it with a more descriptive title. Preferably you could find a version of the file that still has the camera's original metadata attached. I'm not particularly eager to pursue the matter, but I'm not the only admin around here. Melchoir (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is me. And yea i agree that the title is bad....are you able to delete it for me?Mcrazychick (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! Melchoir (talk) 07:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * well i fixed the name of the pic. Hope that is better. i will see if my b/f has the original pic still on the memory card so we can attack that camera data you were talking about. Mcrazychick (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Melchoir (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You said they are
But if the teacher spreads false information, they are obviously not. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Teachers are evaluated before they teach. They must pass tests you have never heard of. In many states they must complete degree programs in education. You should do some research on teaching credential requirements in your community; I guarantee you will learn something. Melchoir (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think you will learn something if you research those things. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... yes, I suppose I will? Melchoir (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Wikipedia is not a forum for debate. Melchoir (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I used the wrong word "debate". In discussing this article, do you have any proof that light has either a magnetic or electric field, which justifies leaving the article as it is? Vince Bvcrist (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Physical proof is irrelevant. Open any textbook on electrodynamics or optics and you will read that light is composed of waves in the electromagnetic field. According to the policy Verifiability, the fact that this theory is so widely attested is more important than whether or not it is true, correct, or sufficiently proven. Melchoir (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

please, mediate Magnetic monopole discussion
At Talk:Magnetic_monopole and Talk:Magnetic_monopole -- 12 February 2008.

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


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

Measurement Causes Collapse
You you read this article?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Fair enough. I take your point at least with regard to the problematic "equivalent expressions" rhetoric. I'm relieved to see I'm not the only one who finds the wording slightly imprecise, but I'll lay off it for now. Thanks for the thorough explanation. — xDanielx  T/C\R 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, thanks for understanding! Melchoir (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Yes, but the point is that if we plotted that it would converge around the origin rather than (0,-1). Since the purpose of the diagram is to illustrate that e^(i*pi)=-1, it makes more sense to do it cumulatively, with each successive part making it closer and closer to this point, thus proving the identity. Generally as you say we might as well consider each part in sequence, but the particular reason in this case is that we're trying to show that the combined parts = -1.Iloveeuler (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what I meant. You could have a rectangular spiral converging on -1. The first few points would be 1, 1 + i pi, 1 + i pi - pi^2/2, 1 + i pi - pi^2/2 - i pi^3/6, ... Melchoir (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I see what you mean! I have replaced the graph. Thanks!Iloveeuler (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thank you! Melchoir (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of TERMINALFOUR
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on TERMINALFOUR, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because TERMINALFOUR is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting TERMINALFOUR, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's ever played Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" ?
Hi, I'm looking for Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silpelit), but I can find any information, who ever has played it. If do you know any link to the information about performance this opera please drop me an e-mail at fazoo@o2.pl, because it seems till now, that nobody's played it ever. It's really important for me so I'd be thankful for any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.92.72 (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Able Archer 83
nominated Able Archer 83 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   09:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote
Yes in most circumstances the hatnote is not necessary on a disambiguated page name. In this case, there is confusion on the poker and blackjack meaning of the term and if someone ends up here, he may very well be looking for the poker usage.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How exactly could that happen? Melchoir (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Millionaire: 50/50
I am asking for deletion GameGuy95 (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Melchoir (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Electromotive force
It would be great if you could take a look at Electromotive force. which could use some independent views. Please, and thanks. Brews ohare (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it's best if I stay away from that article. Sorry! Melchoir (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Moles
Thanks with your help with the Talpidae!
 * No prob!

Money burning -> Burning money
Hi, I think the previous title is better. The reason is, 'Money burning' is unambiguously about the action of taking paper money and setting fire to it, whereas, 'Burning money' is often used as a metaphor to describe wasteful, extravagant or profligate spending. Many (perhaps most) of the google hits on 'Burning money' use the term in that sense; they speak not about setting fire to paper money, but about wasteful spending. Hence, I think the page name should be changed back. Thanks, LK (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about hits; for example, compare (78 hits) to  (64 hits)
 * I agree that possible confusion with wasteful spending is undesirable, but from a practical point of view, I found that it was usually much easier to use "burning money" in a sentence than "money burning". The result is an article that uses the first phrase more often -- so it seems natural to make that the title. Melchoir (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

wtf? :P
Instead of burning money, I'll put my money on that one getting over 5,000 hits. That is the weirdest hook I've seen. Excellent! Seb az86556 (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What a generous compliment -- thank you! :-) Here are some more weird ones: AFMPbox Melchoir (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Church frescos in Denmark
You removed the link to the Danish "Kalkmaleri". In fact this term is used exclusively for Danish frescos. The Danish article on "Fresko" is the generic one. So I still feel it is important to make a link with Kalkmaleri, also because it would be useful for the Danes to be able to view the English content too. If I make the link again, you will probably delete it once more, so would you be kind enough to restore it yourself. Thanks and congratulations for being so alert. - Ipigott (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see! In that case, could you please remove the generic interlanguage links from da:Kalkmaleri? Those are what confused me, and I don't want them confusing the bots as well. Melchoir (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll play around with this and try to put some order into the mess. I can understand why the Danish article on Kalkmaleri points to articles on frescos in the other languages as until now there was nothing specific in most of them about church wall paintings in Denmark. Only the Swedes seem to have something similar on Kalkmålning - but it's only a couple of lines. Thanks for your quick response. - Ipigott (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * no prob Melchoir (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Skipper
Yeah, it has to do with the way they're generated in AWB. The easiest thing to do, I've found, is to generate them all at once, then go back to those and fix them up manually. In fact, I had intended on finishing that last night...unfortunately I had to leave it sooner than I expected. I can deal with it tonight easily. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Melchoir (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Evenness of zero
(Moved to Talk:Odd-even rationing)

is this article okay........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starry_Rockfish ? Dr. Szląchski (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. Melchoir (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

India.gov.in, National Portal of India
An article created with title India.gov.in was deleted, as it appeared to be a Copyright Infringement. But, the editor holds official Copyrights for India.gov.in. and http://india.gov.in/cfw/npicontent_framework.pdf As this is the first article created by National Portal of India team, we request you for your help, to know more on how to protect the article from deletion. Please feel free to ask for any clarification required (if any). Official National Portal of India

Talk User123 india (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User123 india (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Influenza prevention
Thank you for your helpful comments. I know I was being somewhat brash with the way I was linking articles to the one we have been talking about. I want more editors to get to the article and improve it through consensus. We will see how this turns out in a few days. Thank you again. Sagan666 (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob! Melchoir (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Fachette
As the original der, I thought you might be interested in this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks!

Influenza prevention
I was wondering what your thoughts are on my own ideas for my recently created article (currently titled) Influenza prevention. As I am sure you have read, I argue that the page should receive expedited presentation somewhere on the Wikipedia main page. I think even keeping it for an extended period of time in the "News" section would be very great. With more people looking at the article, the article will improve (as I realize it is certainly imperfect). What do you think of this? Sagan666 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the article does need more eyes and more edits. You might want to bring in a few editors who are invested in the area before publicizing it to everyone though. Talk:2009 flu pandemic might help you with this.
 * Ultimately, the place to suggest an extended ITN appearance is probably Template talk:In the news.
 * I have to be honest, I'm not a contributor in either area, and I don't follow their discussions. So I'm having a hard time anticipating what you might need to do to win support. I think you'll probably just have to stick your neck out and hope that enough people agree with you to keep the ball rolling. Melchoir (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Museum of Flying
Permission from the author to release the content under CC-BY-SA was granted and noted at and an email was sent to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Recently the talk page was deleted for "G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page". Can you please advise on the next steps I should take in order put back up the Museum of Flying page. I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for my confusion. Please see below for the original message I received.

Cheers, Jeremymoseley (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Museum of Flying, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, Museum of Flying appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Museum of Flying has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and CC-BY-SA, under CC-BY-SA, or released into the public domain leave a note at with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Melchoir (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed up Talk:Museum of Flying. According to Donating copyrighted materials, someone will reply to your email to let you know what the next steps are.
 * Meanwhile I invite you to think about Verifiability and Conflict of interest, since copyright isn't the only challenge an article like this may face. If you can provide secondary sources to reference the information, the article will be much more useful to our readers than a simple copy of a website would be. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Melchoir. It was meant as a starting base, and I have invited others who are looking forward to editing the page as soon as it goes back to "live". I will be sure to forward the Verifiability and Conflict of Interest links to them. Any idea about how long the process may take to get the page approved? It has been a little over a week.

Thanks, Jeremymoseley (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, unfortunately I don't have any direct experience in how long the process takes. Judging by other requests, though, it looks like it can take months.
 * Meanwhile, if you really want to work on the article now, you can always create an entirely new one (without copying previously published material). The deleted version will remain hidden, visible only to administrators, until the OTRS process concludes, at which point I can undelete that version without affecting any work that's been done in the interim. Melchoir (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)