Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ilyanep (talk | contribs) at 14:49, 5 July 2006 (re: Commons-l). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I will respond to messages on this page. Please check your contributions list ("My contributions") for responses. If there is a response, your edit is no longer the "top" edit in the list.

Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old revisions are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments use the "Page history" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

• Removed all comments prior to Jan 2003. --Eloquence 04:42 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to Feb 2003. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to March 2003. --Eloquence 21:19 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments prior to April 2003. --Eloquence 08:14 25 May 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to May 31 2003. -Eloquence 19:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to June 21, 2003. --Eloquence 18:58 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to July 3, 2003. --Eloquence 21:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to July 22, 2003. --Eloquence 09:07 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to August 28, 2003.—Eloquence 02:11, Aug 28, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to October 15, 2003.—Eloquence 22:39, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 5, 2003.—Eloquence 15:17, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 20, 2003.—Eloquence 12:42, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to February 23, 2004.—Eloquence 23:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to April 2, 2004.--Eloquence* 09:12, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to June 3, 2004.--Eloquence* 12:07, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 24, 2004.--Eloquence* 11:25, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to June 15, 2005.--Eloquence* 05:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Removed all comments up to December 8, 2005.--Eloquence* 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Pompeii Priapus 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pompeii Priapus 2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is a work of public domain art that was created about 2000 years ago, so a specific source is not necessary. I've tagged it with {{PD-art}}.--Eloquence* 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

best friend on wikipedia right now?

I just saw your discussion with User:Durin on his talk page. Originally our positions were far far apart, but now they seem almost identical. It's so strange that de facto you're now potentially one of my best friends on wikipedia. *blink*. I'm sure this won't last, I'll be sure to get you next time ;-)Kim Bruning 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always and consistently argued that adminship should be given to pretty much anyone who can be trusted, and revoked if they cause trouble. Monobook.js (potential vector for scripting attacks) and image deletions currently necessitate a somewhat more careful approach. I think there are a couple of history-related actions which are hard to revert, too. If you want a more permissive model, working on these fronts - by coding or lobbying - would probably help. The simplest short term solution would be a new class of "trusted users" who can't perform actions which aren't reversible.--Eloquence* 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

question on wikidb

Hi, M7 told me you are "the most qualified person to know life, death and miracles of getting the best performances from the db", so i'm asking you a very simple question: i'm trying to do some queries on the SQL dump of it.wiki, and managed to write this select. But it is soooooo slooooow... do you think is possible to write a better query? Or, what do you think about this? (the regexp is from Leonard Vertighel) (oh, btw, this query should search the db for images without alternative text (ALT parameter in HTML) and write a list of page names)

 SELECT CONCAT("# ]")
  FROM page WHERE page_namespace='0'
  JOIN revision ON page_id=rev_page
  JOIN text ON rev_text_id=old_id
  WHERE old_text REGEXP "\\]*(image|immagine)]*:]+\\|]*(thumb(nail)?|right|left|center|none|frame|]+px)?]*\\]\\]"

Thanks --Iron Bishop 15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely not the most qualified when it comes to DB query questions. Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, Domas Mituzas, James Day all have a better grasp of MySQL in general and our current DB design in particular -- I have no idea why anyone would call me the "most qualified". If you have quite a bit of memory, I do think it might be fastest to operate on the XML dump directly. You could also load the dump into memory in manageable parts, parse them, and search the XML tree. An unindexed query on lots of raw text is always going to be slow, especially with REGEXP. As I understand it, the FULLTEXT index doesn't support REGEXP searches, unfortunately. Please do let me know if you come up with a better search strategy.--Eloquence* 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for deserting your sockpuppet as well, since you abandoned the Wikipadia business as your main income dream. I don't know what to do with all the assembled evidence, shall i give it to the press or leave you in peace? You removed the signs of your buyable character already, so i will probably leave it at that. Say hello to Angie and stay away. 60.38.70.147 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never maintained any sock puppets on Misplaced Pages and have no idea what you are talking about.--Eloquence* 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

ah no sockpuppet par definition, but maybe another identity ?60.38.70.147 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. I always stand with my name for what I say and believe. I really don't know who you are or what you want.--Eloquence* 14:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

edited your comment

maybe I'm feeling touchy about being nice to people today, but I just edited a comment of yours lightly in the hope that you were just in a bad mood. Feel free to revert me if you wish. I won't re-revert. Mozzerati 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize "chicken little" could be seen as rude in this context. Thanks.--Eloquence* 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Glamour photography versus "porn"

In reply to your message on my talk page:

If it's not sex, it comes under glamour photography as per the definition in the article. Nudity without any sex acts actually happening...

You say "threesomes", but from what I've researched about Bomis it was never more than that. I bet in those "threesomes" they never actually had any sex.

What have you got against poor Jimbo anyway? You of all people, a Wikimedia developer...

(Feel free to either reply here or my talk page) --Mistress Selina Kyle 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages maintains an NPOV regardless of the topic of the article. I am afraid you are letting your loyalty to Jimbo come in the way of maintaining a neutral point of view. Shaved pubic hair and posing with sex toys may qualify as "glamour photography" in the strictest sense, but when describing it from the outside, the term "softporn" is much more accurate and widely understood. We do not use euphemisms.--Eloquence* 23:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

(hm.. Why is there a different reply here than on my talk page?)

Innocent until proven guilty - The burden of proof is on you, as the one adding this material to the article... "I'm inclined to only state what we know for sure from the facts and images which are public" (quote you): But the fact is you don't know that they ever did more than that, and from the evidence it seems unlikely that anything more was shown as you described:- suggestive poses without sex acts

You say "sucking" - did you see a video? Were you subscribed to the premium members section? I doubt it. I bet you're referring to a dildo (which is, after all, just a stick of plastic) placed in the mouth for a pose, or as you said, placed between the breasts ("rubbing" suggests action, you cannot tell this from a photo) - each photo is carefully staged, it's just for show.

This is nothing to do with "loyalty" - I am interested in keeping NPOV here, which you don't seem to have: or at least more than slightly biased against Jimbo for some interest or another.

Posing IS NOT sex. Photography of humans nude in their natural state, sometimes in suggestive poses (Glamour photography) IS NOT sex. Pornography is sex.

One of your main arguments is that the keywords (not sites, which are added automatically depending on the keywords) are added manually: So what? A large part of the internet is pornography (I'm sure we've all heard various jokes about the internet being "made for porn"), and they are doing no more than automatically maintaining links to other websites that contain keywords that people often search for (mostly men - but a large chunk of active internet users are men). If they did not include "porn" in this list they would be lying.

It's hardly the same as if they made the sites themselves. --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be turning this into some kind of moral argument. As I said, I have no moral objections to Bomis (other than that I consider much of what they create to be effectively search engine spam). We are, however, trying to neutrally and factually document the company, and it is a fact that Bomis focuses on collecting URLs related to popular search terms, and that in doing so, focuses primarily on pornography and celebrities. These facts should be stated in the article.--Eloquence* 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the bit about "your name in connection with porn" from the copy->talk:Bomisjust for your own privacy (I guess that's what you meant?) - add it back in if you want --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about Bomis

Lets just keep it in Talk:Bomis, I'll copy stuff there for point of record so people reading the article know the discussion happened anyway. --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry

The reason I often throw in so many random smilies people sometimes mistake me for a illiterate AOL'er is because I tend to be bad at wording things in that people think I'm angry when I'm actually not (sometimes I disagree strongly, but I don't mind a debate :)) (pssst --Mistress Selina Kyle 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Trying to do the right thing

Hi,

I am new to wikipedia, and have found the experience very positive except for one thing. I had a page blocked for possible copyright violation last week. I improved the page (well, the temp article), and have tried to get the new article in place.

I read what you wrote about restoring pages that you feel do not infringe on copyright. I hope you can help me out.

The page in question would be at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/Craik_Sustainable_Living_Project>

The reworked page is at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/Craik_Sustainable_Living_Project/Temp>

Besides creating the temp page and improving the article, I have emailed the person who blocked it, I have posted to his/her talk page, I have put an entry on the talk page created for this entry, and I have asked other wikipedians for help (they have been supportive, although unable to remove the block). While the page was blocked within minutes of me submitting it (efficient), it is apparently much more difficult to get it unblocked (replaced by the temp sub-article).

Anyway, thanks in advance. All dialogue I have had so far through wikipedia has been positive. The only frustrating thing has been when there is no dialogue. I am trying to not be impatient, and I notice there is a backlog at the moment on the copyright problems page. I did not mean for my efforts to contribute to a backlog. --Delzen 01:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be done. Do you still need any help?--Eloquence* 10:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. All is good now. --Delzen 02:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Tribal chief, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Rollbacklink text

Howdy. I noticed your change of the rollback link text. I don't think this change is a good idea; please join the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Rollback text changed. android79 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

Rollback isn't only intended for vandalism. A proposal to that extent was made about a month ago and failed by a wide margin. Radiant_>|< 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, since Misplaced Pages:Revert is still fairly clear in its wording. Can you point me to the relevant page?--Eloquence* 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Revert itself says: If you insist on using the rollback feature for non-vandalism edits, be sure to explain on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. It's rare, but I've done this sort of thing a few times. android79 23:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm busily looking for it, give me a few minutes. I realize that there is what seems to be a vocal minority that wishes to restrict rollbacking, yet precedent shows us that other uses are also accepted. But note that it's only a shortcut, and that it shouldn't make a difference whether a revert was done manually, through Godmode Lite, or through rollback - but in general a revert begs an explanation. Also note that Brion's quote isn't policy (and in fact has only been on that page for a couple of months). Radiant_>|< 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get into discussions on the level of "it's not policy / it's policy", but let's try to figure out what makes sense and what doesn't. I think there is a fairly clear consensus that rolling back non-vandal edits is problematic due to the message it sends and should, if ever, only be done in very special circumstances. I'll continue this on the Pump, but I'd still like to see a link to the aforementioned proposal/discussion.--Eloquence* 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, put on the pump. I wasn't about to go into "that" discussion, but note that some people have been using "because Brion said so" as an argument. Radiant_>|< 23:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Stable versions#Certification gang

what do you think of this? -- Zondor 16:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking to a Work which Infringes Copyright

Dear Eloquence:

I am in a dispute over linking to a page that I believe infringes the copyright of the publisher of Martin Luther's Works. Would you take a look at my leg work on this issue (recorded at Talk:Martin Luther/Copyright of Luther's Works and the latest discussion on Talk:Martin Luther and the Jews? I am very close to loosing my cool on this issue and could use the opinion of a respected user on this issue. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bolding cross-references

Could you weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22cross-references.22_in_bold.3F? This seems originally to have been your idea; it doesn't seem to be what anyone is doing, and I'd like to remove it from the MoS. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion

Hi Erik,

The following page seems to be overdue for deletion (if I understand Misplaced Pages processes good enough)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Prakash_Sharma

Can you take the necessary action, or can you recommend what I can do to have the page deleted.

Thanks, Ron Smith

Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category

Hello! You were listed on the Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Misplaced Pages:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 14:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the Internet

There are too many significant uses and applications of the Internet to detail on the page. See List of Internet topics for a list of every internet use and application that a wikipedia editor has considered significant. --Barberio 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here against User:Mr j galt (talk · contribs). If you are familar with his editing and would like to add your input, please feel free to do so, whatever your POV. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Theora and MPEG

You recently commented at FPC that "Personally, I would support changing the policy to allow MPEG codecs to be used alongside Theora". I think it sounds like a good idea. However, because I'm not really sure how this mailing list thing works, and because you probably have a better idea of the issues around such a change, would you be able to raise this up for us please? Many thanks, and please keep us informed on Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Image:Storm.ogg. enochlau (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've brought it up, but I consider the chances of being successful minimal. People are very ideological about these things.--Eloquence* 10:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Exception?

Can an exception be made for the North Korea images? I think 'no commercial use' is the best Misplaced Pages can get. I believe Jimbo's words are like the Bible: up to interpretation. The media pays good money for pictures such as these, we are lucky to have use of some of the best. --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm curious, what is the reasoning behind not allowing "non-commercial use" images here? --Colle|File:Locatecolle.gif|Talk-- 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article explains my position on the matter.--Eloquence* 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Windchime2.jpg, Image:Pan.jpg, Image:Windchime.jpg, Image:Windchime3.jpg, Image:Stupidus.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading all these images. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Misplaced Pages (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Matt 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also Image:Horseshoes.jpg, Image:Pompeii Censorship.jpg

For all of these images, the name of the original artist would be ideal, but if the art is really old then I don't think it's that big of a deal. But at least the photographer should be provided. Matt 04:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

These have been uploaded ages ago, under the assumption that reproduction of three-dimensional public domain art would be in the public domain; unfortunately, this appears to be only true for two-dimensional works of art. I regret their deletion, but it seems unavoidable; I'll re-upload the Stupidus fresco which showed the censorship of erotic artwork in Pompeii under fair use.--Eloquence* 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypatia

I don't get the reason for this edit in Hypatia of Alexandria: " Soldan, W.G. und Heppe, H., Geschichte der Hexenprozesse, Essen 1990. (English translation by Misplaced Pages.)". Where does the translation come from? Curious shtove 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was my mistake to confusingly label it "translation by Erik Möller" (myself) in the first place. I did a translation of large parts of Soldan's work, but it was never published; I just happened to use part of it in the article (the cited section from Soldan's work) and wanted to make it clear who is to blame for the English language used in the citation. Perhaps it should be changed to "cited excerpt translated into English by Misplaced Pages" or something equally unambiguous.--Eloquence* 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pan.jpg copyright

OrphanBot is removing this image from articles because it doesn't have copyright information. You were the original uploader. Can you fix that? Thanks. --FOo 18:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ru:Википедия:Форум:Архив-2005-01-22

USA Today

Nice little mention in USA Today. Congrats! --LV 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice find, I guess they liked my username. ;-)--Eloquence* 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

inputbox.php

Hi Eloquence.... I'm really keen to get this extension. Unfortunately CVS has been down for at least a day. Do you know of another location I can get it? If there is nowhere, any chance you could email it to <mywikipediausername>@yahoo.com.au ? Thanks muchly.... - Borofkin 00:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

CVS back up, so please disregard. - Borofkin 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A Favor?

Hi Eloquence - its been a long time since we interacted, however, I'm wondering if I can ask a favor. Things have gotten quite heated at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. between User:Bcatt and a number of Mormon editors (we have moved a portion of the discussion to my talk page). I've tried to step in and help guide the discussion, but because I am a Latter-day Saint adherent, I am being accused of treating her differently than Mormon editors and abusing my administrative status (see my talk page) - both which I take very seriously.

Whenever I've tried to guide the discussion (which I have not been a part of for the bulk, except to try to help guide), she seems to have blown up at me, as if I am mastermining and encouraging discrimination about her. For example, a few months ago I suggested that she and Storm Rider work out their uncivility and take a break from the page, but she though I was being harsher on her than him (he took a break, she didn't). When I suggested we find out who the sock puppet is on the JS Jr, she said that I was holding double standards for LDS editors, and "engaging in questionable practices due to bias." I don't know what I did to make her over-react like that, as my interaction with her was very limited up until that point, although she does have a history of controversy and antagonism towards personal beliefs (ie politics, philosophy and religion)(see her user boxes). As a non-Mormon admin who is trusted in the Misplaced Pages community, could you go to the talk page, read through and offer suggestions? In addition, and personally, I'd appreciate a critique of my handling of the situation and her. I do take these accusations seriously, as you know. Thanks in advance. --Visorstuff 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Descopy

Just saw this for the first time. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but why not simply edit the Commons description page in the relevant cases to a) make it clearer that the primary links refer to Commons galleries, b) add secondary links to Misplaced Pages articles (using the ] syntax? As it is, this invites unnecessary duplication and, as a consequence, makes the description pages harder to maintain.--Eloquence* 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I didn't just add w: links to the commons page was that I'd like to see which links actually work, and w: links do not show the red/blue for working/broken links. In a way it was for my own reference, but I thought others might like to see which links worked or didn't too. It's not ideal, but it works for me. —Pengo 23:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FlickrLickring copyvios?

I doubt it, but please see the comment I just left on your commons talk page. cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Erik!

How are you?

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp PR

Hello there! I remember seeing you contribute to various Holocaust-related articles. I have recently expanded the article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp and asked for a peer review. I thought you might want to take a look at the article and perhaps improve it or tell me what's missing. //Halibutt 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediareview / spam blacklist

Erik I just wanted to write and thank you for the position you took on the listing of Wikipediareview on the spam blacklist. I strongly agree with you that although that site is problematic in some ways, we should not be abusing the spam list by listing it. Raul654 has had to put with a lot of crap from some contributors to that site and I think that caused his judgement to be come slightly clouded on this isse. Thanks again for stepping in. Pcb21 Pete 09:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I can certainly understand that people react strongly to Misplaced Pages Review. From photos of morbidly obese people being posted as allegedly showing a particular administrator, over detailed inquiries into other people's sex lives, to accusations of child molestation, the site certainly goes from one moral low to the next. As I said on Meta, I would have no problem enforcing a strong and permanent removal of references to the site from Misplaced Pages if someone makes a strong claim that they have been hurt by it, and that the site administrators have refused to respond. However, it is unlikely that the spam blacklist would be the right tool to enforce such a removal.--Eloquence* 21:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Erik, I would like to e-mail you about the above, but you haven't specified an e-mail address. Would you mind e-mailing me with your address using the link on my page? SlimVirgin 01:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't yet activated the e-mail address here. The "E-mail this user" should work again now if you have yours activated. Please test it so I know it's working. Re: the removal of the comments, I'm not sure what the policy is, but I generally prefer it if people do not remove comments from my talk page. I will do that myself where I consider it necessary.--Eloquence* 01:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I just tried it, Erik, and it's still not working. The policy is that posts from banned users should be removed, although of course you're welcome to restore as you see fit. Cheers, SlimVirgin 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good way to stifle discussion. Ban someone you disagree with, then wipe anything that anyone says that agrees with them, saying that its a post of a "banned user". Good one there.

You're too quick :-). I had to tick a checkbox, too.--Eloquence* 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Over at the meta talk page there is some discussion of behaviour at WR that troubles me far more than some being called fat. This I've reluctantly come to realise that we may need to prevent linking to some sites for reasons other than spam. WR is a prime candidate for this new category. I hope we can use a separate list (even if the implementational back-end remains the same) to list these rogue sites as the original point about using a spam list to ban things other than spam looking bad is valid. Pcb21 Pete 13:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What you just did.

Don't do that again. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?--Eloquence* 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess she's talking about unprotecting the pages Danny protected, but I agree with you - unless he cited WP:OFFICE then there was no business protecting them, and the blocking of you is way out of line. --Golbez 19:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Golbez. I have posted about the issue about the mailing lists. Re: Misplaced Pages Review above, I actually used to have an account there, but it was deleted because I used a Mailinator e-mail address. I have posted to the old ProBoards version a few times in the past in defense of Misplaced Pages. (Meta-comment: Note that blocked users can edit their own talk page. As of now, I am still blocked and desysopped.)--Eloquence* 19:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

According to and you have not been desysoped. Admins can no longer use their rights while blocked (it was a bug). Kotepho 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, according to this, Erik is not a sysop. Oh, and exactly one minute after he posted his comment above, Danny unblocked him. Johnleemk | Talk 20:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And then he reblocked for 48 hours. Johnleemk | Talk 20:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to check meta, you are correct. Kotepho 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What Erik just did was follow Misplaced Pages policy. In doing that he should not have been banned and desyopped. We have a serious problem here and if Danny cannot separate Misplaced Pages administrator and Wikimedia Foundation employee hats, as appears the case here, then steps need to be taken. In future all actions on WP:OFFICE should be done using Dannyisme the separate account established recently for such actions. They should also be labelled as such in edit summaries. I just had to add the two pages concerned to the Office protected category as no one had done so.

I'm inclined to say strip Danny's ordinary account of all powers associated with it for gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy. David Newton 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not one for torches and pitchforks, but I have to agree with this sentiment. Danny has to have way, way more respect for the role he plays in wielding WP:OFFICE. If he actively removes a WP:OFFICE tag off of a page, why on Earth should we think that it's an Office action? If the Sword of Dannycles is going to hang over articles, Danny must at least give us the decency of telling us we ought not sit there. (And is there a reason we can't have the user named something like User:WikiOffice with a user page that explains what the Office policies are? Until today I had no idea who "Dannyisme" is.) JDoorjam Talk 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's mainly because I think that account was literally just created today! David Newton 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam, I agree with you. I would just like to see some consistency when the powers of OFFICE are being used, so that incidents like this can be avoided. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to pseudonymously (because you could probably work out or find out who I am in seconds) register my support for you. I hope this stupid little misunderstanding blows over quickly. 86.140.128.28 22:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been unblocked by no less then Jimbo himself. As of now however you are still de-sysoped here, de-sysoped on meta, and indefinitely blocked on meta. Prodego 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am for a cooling down period. But I support Eloquence. He is one of our best and does not deserve this treatment. I think this is all a terrible misunderstanding. I sincerely hope this can be resolved. Longbow4u 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ee.pl under Mac OS X

I've managed to get ee.pl working under Mac OS X and would like to contribute instructions. Should I stick them on Meta:Help:External_editors / Meta:Help talk:External_editors, post them here, email them to you, or other? -- JVinocur 05:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Post them on the meta talk page; I will add them to the INSTALL file. Thanks, --Eloquence* 11:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! See Help talk:External editors#ee.pl on Mac OS X. -- JVinocur 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

1WW Refactor

Please see Refactor and New discussion.

You were gracious enough to comment on 1WW; as you may know there are now seven competing proposals. On April 6 I suggested that I be permitted to refactor the proposal page into a single, unified proposal. It's my belief that most of us are tending toward the same or a similar restriction on wheel warring. I think it's unwieldy, though, as it stands. A fair number of editors have commented on these distinct versions but (precisely because they are so similar) no single one has gained undisputed consensus. I suggest that a single, improved version may fare better on its way to policy.

Just as I proposed the refactor, an editor brought to our attention yet another competing proposal, which I merged into the others, using the same format. Still another proposal has since been added, bringing the total to 7. The two new proposals are encountering an indifferent reception but they, too, have some merit.

At the time I suggested refactor, I also put myself forward as the editor to write the initial draft, based on the plurality of support for "my" version. Since the two new proposals have been added, this plurality has held.

I don't for a moment feel that this gives me any special right to dictate terms; rather I hope to draft a proposal uniting the best features of existing proposals. Unlike any of the seven currently competing versions, this refactor will be open to editing immediately by any editor. I will ask editors to refrain from supporting or opposing the new draft for the time being; instead, to edit the proposal to reflect their specific concerns. I believe the true consensus policy will then emerge, in true wiki fashion. After all, we're not so far apart.

I come to your talk page today to ask for your comment on this refactor. Clearly this will be a major change to the proposal page and I don't feel comfortable being quite that bold without some expression of interest in the idea. Once the new draft is in place, I hope also for your participation to polish it into a true expression of our values. Let's move forward with this complement to WP:3RR. John Reid 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

InstantCommons

Is this project still being developed? If so, when will it be ready? I hope not to bother, greetings, Longbow4u 13:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The project was stalled for some time. We received authorization to go ahead from the "Special Projects Committee" a few days ago. I believe contracts are now being prepared.--Eloquence* 10:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not entirely accurate. More exactly, here is what is fully accurate. The spc approved the project (with a few recommandations discussed with you and Gerard). Now 1) the spc should submit the recommandation to the board, and the board should officially approved it (we are pretty optimistic on this), 2) we need to get approval for the funding (from Kennisnet) and 3) we are waiting for the contracts to be prepared (By Brad). To which I would add a 4) Gerard must agree with the contract provider...

Provided that these four points are fixed, you may go ahead.

Anthere. Chair of Special Project Committee.

Great, thank you for the answers. My hope is that this will turn many wikis even more toward free content licensing, and that would be great for free content. Perhaps (most probably) they will even contribute back with their own content to Commons. Longbow4u 20:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthere. Viva bureaucracy! ;-) I thought part of the reason the committee was formed is to relieve the Board of having to review the details of proposals like this one. Doesn't the SPC have delegated authority to make its own decisions in these matters?--Eloquence* 20:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Well, we definitly relieved it if I consider the number of hours the spc spent on it... which the board would *never* have. Without the spc, the project would still be in limbo as far as the board is concerned ;-) Now, on a more serious note, the committee is roughly two months old and we need to make up our own rules of procedure and ask for area of delegation. Whilst I believe the procedures are roughly set up, the delegations still are to be defined. Anthere

I know it isn't your area, but you might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II, an article on the pretender to the throne of Iran. Iranian monarchists seem to want to ensure the article is an OTT hagiography and don't like even mild criticism being added in. The article needs professional salvage. FearÉIREANN\ 00:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

• {{User Saints WikiProject}}

This user is a member of WikiProject Saints.

Thanks! --evrik 16:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Image:MediaWikiExternalEditorImage.png

Your image has been nominated for speedy deletion on Commons. Please advise the English Wiktionary (which also uses it) if there is a suitable alternate image, on wikt:WT:CT. --Connel MacKenzie 06:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

merge

Hallo. i want to merge my two useraccounts. who can i ask, or wath can i do? De:Benutzer:Robinhood andDe:Benutzer:Robinhut --58.84.79.95 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any process for this.--Eloquence* 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

You asked that you be notified if it happened and I just noticed Dr. McNinja is up on DRV again. The discussion is at: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja 2 –Abe Dashiell 00:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.--Eloquence* 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

You're too modest :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even set up the server. I only wrote the proposals and a bit of code.--Eloquence* 23:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your good wishes. I aspire to make WMF a better place and appreciate your vote of confidence.--BradPatrick 02:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Alternative block template for companies

I've made some changes in language; let me know what you think. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja (second nomination)

Regarding finding a way to quantify the "many small" arguments some effort was made at the proposed "meme" guideline page but nothing ever came of it. The reason that the website/web guideline is so robust is that it's usually so binary. I'd be happy to discuss any suggestions for an appropiate metric to apply. - brenneman 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm usually a big policy wonk, but there are actually reasons not to put this into a too specific guideline -- we don't want to encourage people to game the policy by setting up fake sites and such. Can't we, for the time being, simply establish a precedent that this kind of argument is allowable on AFD, and refer to that precedent in future discussions?--Eloquence* 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is an argument that is difficult to falsily but easy to make. Leaving it open to "We knows it when we sees it" style arguments can only be countered by "Well, I don't think so." That hardly leads to scintillating discourse, it's all just opinion. And voting. Currently there exists a clearly defined lower bound only, even a suggestion of another goalpost would be good.
brenneman 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to a short addition to WP:WEB, such as: "A large amount of decentralized coverage in smaller publications, online or offline, may sometimes be interpreted to be as meaningful as a single report in a larger publication. Editors need to exercise their own judgment here, and be particularly wary of fake "grassroots" campaigns, temporary phenomena, and short-lived memes." Anything much larger than that would be problematic, I think. There are actionable objections that can be derived from that, such as: all publications report about X within a very small time window, all have little content except the coverage, etc. Votes can be swamped by supporters, but that is always the case.--Eloquence* 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

3D Construction Kit

I did not realise this. In my browser it just leaves a large chunk of white space. Mgiganteus1 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Paranoia?

I'm writing to you because you posted what seemed to be an intelligent Article for what I believe I have just experienced, "Avoid Copyright Paranoia"

I thought I'd post something on Wiki-Pedia that my father had conveyed to me years ago. I did a little research found a couple of sources and posted a short article. Currently all my contributions are scheduled for deletion. No false statements have been made, and it was meant mainly for fun. But there may be something to it celtic toe

The response to the celtic toe doesn't bother me so much. The part that bugs me is the work I did on my own, from scratch. I submitted several illustrations I created from images I viewed on the web. But, I created them from scratch using my own skills. I submitted these with out any restrictions. And well, I think, you are right, we have whole bunch of people interested in only one thing. Hitting the delete button and raising a stink. I don't know what your opinion of my work is. But, I'll say this I think you are right on the money, and "Avoid Copyright Paranoia" is the first statement about a real problem facing wiki-pedia. This is a real problem and a serious hamper to any real contribution.

Any way to identify and revoke privs from people just trying to win some sort of self glorification battle?

MediaWiki contribution

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar In recognition of your signification contribution to the MediaWiki article, I hereby award you with this barnstar. --DavidHOzAu 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very nice. And a rotating one, too! Thank you. ;-) --Eloquence* 20:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

infoAnarchy wiki

I just wanted to let you know that the infoAnarchy wiki has been down for almost a month now. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that long? I know that it's down, though. Have been trying to get in touch with the site admin to see if we can get it back up. If not, I'll try to migrate it to my servers ASAP.--Eloquence* 23:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mediawiki-opensuse.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Mediawiki-opensuse.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right.--Eloquence* 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Images are self-made; what is you dont understand?! Do you suffer from paranoia? Luka Jačov 18:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont you have a life? Actually Gianfranco and I spent summer togheter and took pictures togheter. Luka Jačov 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you checked it better you could see that image wasnt uploaded by me but by Uvouvo whose relatives run that site. Luka Jačov 18:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Map was given to me by Lastovo Tourist community. Luka Jačov 18:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

So how can I prove my claims? Luka Jačov 18:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And how will you know that mail is authentic? Luka Jačov 19:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"I am strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"." -- All I can say that you are a hypocrite. Luka Jačov 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your request on the DRV for RuneScape Armor

Hi Eloquence - The C&C precedents (four or five seperate AFDs) are all linked to via this: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG) Proto///type 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Logos of the Walt Disney Company

I've undeleted this talk page as there's ongoing discussion about the deletion. CSD G8 explicitly states that talk pages of deleted pages should not be deleted if there is "deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere or notes that would help in creating an article", both of which is the case here.

No, the deletion discussion, if any, belonged at its AfD entry or would now belong at a new DRV discussion. In addition, I do not believe that the talk page of a deleted article is the place for geneneralized whining about the unfairness of it all, particularly regarding the page having been protected against re-creation. --Calton | Talk 23:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not characterize other people's comments as "whining." There is no harm in having the discussion associated with the talk page of the article, especially when the article page is locked for recreation. This makes it easier for others to locate comments should the article come up for DRV.--Eloquence* 23:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Eon8 deletion

Hi Eloquence. Thank you for your message.

Whilst there were a number of experienced users who believed the article should be kept, there was a far greater number of experienced users who believed the article should be deleted. Discounting the votes of sock/meat puppets and those with less than 20 edits, the significant majority of arguments were for deletion. AFD is not a vote, and so I took - as I always do when closing an AFD discussion - into account the quality of the arguments. The quality of the arguments to delete far outweighed those to keep.

If you believe the current deletion policy is broken when it comes to discussing the deletion of articles that incur a vast array of interest from Slashdot frequenting meatpuppets, then you should consider trying to reform the current deletion process. In the meantime, thank you for your reassurance that I am not entirely to blame for exercising my own judgement!  :) All the best, Proto///type 14:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

re: Commons-l

No problem -- I'm already subscribed to wikipedia-l, wikien-l and wikinews-l, so i probably won't notice another list since I make the messages skip my inbox anyways :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)