User talk:Eloquence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, please 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)
• Removed all comments up to July 5, 2006.--Eloquence* 23:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Dworkin Article Template

Eloquence, I'd like to discuss the issue of the Template:Bias_Warning on the Andrea Dworkin page. I've already posted on the talk page, so I won't clutter your personal page with repetition, but I would appreciate a response. Furthermore, as several other editors have brought up on this same page, the template in question goes at the head of the article, not on the talk page (as per it's own description). I understand your issue with the template's overall existence, but moving it off the front page despite it's very description seems rather slippery. Once a definitive conclusion is come to, it will presumably be deleted and we'll have to do something else. But I think my points are entirely salient and I feel the article deserves a better resolution than this. Thank you. Bullzeye 10:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep and Relist

Hi, thanks for that. It's an interesting idea. If there's no consensus on whether an article is kept, I would rather see a placeholder replace the article, while it's moved to a holding bay (perhaps the talk page of the article), & any/all interested parties try & make the content suitable. If it isn't possible, then it's deleted. If it is, it's kept. I'm aware few would choose this solution. Proto///type 00:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've also thought about the "holding bay" solution, but I think it would lead too much towards the notion of a "sacred article space" (which I find difficult to maintain given articles like List of OS-tans ;-). Perhaps a visible template on the article may be a middle ground -- similar to the "current events" template. This article documents a potentially ephemeral phenomenon and will be subject to a deletion review in the future.--Eloquence* 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:ARYAN818

Eloquence, it's not the Aryan but the combination of Aryan with 818 that I found -- and find -- objectionable. There is a long-standing custom among white supremacists of using numbers as codes: 88 for HH ("Heil Hitler") is the most common, but 818 is apparently use to include his first initial. Per username policy, whether the user finds his own name offensive isn't the point; it's whether others do. I wasn't the first and won't be the last to notice this name and wonder about it. I'm not going to block him again, but you'll probably hear about this again from others. JDoorjam Talk 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page.--Eloquence* 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your outburst was very appropriate, see [1]. dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you referring to the notice I put on Aryan's user page as an "outburst"? Note that at the time, it looked like Aryan had only been blocked because of the name "Aryan" -- the number reference was buried in his talk page history. Even so, I'm still not entirely convinced that the number usage is anything but obscure. "88" yes, but "818"?--Eloquence* 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I appreciate your understanding....You know what really frustrated me the most was that Jdoorjam never even tried to contact me or ask me anything before she blocked me...She just went ahead and abused her power....Its really unfair that she has the power to just block someone without even contacting me and trying to understand the situation first....I mean geez is it my fault shes uneduacted in this matter?....Anyway thanx! ARYAN818 07:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Erick, note from wiki panorama reader

My you're a busy,... er, man, from looking at your personal notes at Wikip. I just posted a link to that page at wwp a pano group. Do you belong to any pano forums?

More later if you have time. Best o' luck and keep up the good work-David

Hello David, unfortunately I have no idea what you're talking about. :-( --Eloquence* 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Current Events Portal Redesign

Seconded - this redesign is excellent, great work!--Eloquence* 20:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Community Portal message will expire on 12 July, but if the support is overwhelming and no more objections come it, perhaps the move could be done earlier. joturner 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep for Brahmanism

Hi, there were 4 votes each for keep and merge/redirect. How did you arbitarily choose keep? Or was there some other rule involved?--Babub | Talk 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The community can continue to discuss whether the article should be merged on Talk:Brahmanism. If there is consensus to do so, that's fine. The AfD result by no means dictates that it should or shouldn't be merged.--Eloquence* 06:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks --Babub | Talk 04:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angela's biography

Eric: Could you add some detail to Angela's biography? I find the enormous differnce in size between her biography and that of Jim's to be disturbing. -- 75.25.181.138 20:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(Jimmy does prefer not to be called Jim, and my name is Erik.) The most information you could add would be about her actual Wikimedia Board or Wikia work. You won't find much secondary source material on that, so some people might accuse you of Original Research if you do. Still, digging through her contributions on wikimediafoundation.org or meta.wikimedia.org you should be able to turn up at least some activities which are unambiguously notable, such as important resolutions. She's done quite a few interviews that aren't mentioned yet; you might ask her to give you a list. Wired also did a profile on her as part of a larger article about Wikipedia contributors.--Eloquence* 22:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake. Angela claimed in her 2005 candidacy statement that she has made contributions to the Spanish, French and German Wikipedias. I jumped to the conclusion that she would not have made such contributions if she was not fluent in those languages. I was wrong to make such an assumptions, but I decided to risk it since such claims are not patently offensive, even if false. Thank you for deleting the false information. -- 67.116.255.227 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

She's very good at using machine translators. :-) --Eloquence* 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

So am I, but I am sure that you are aware that machine translators, as of yet, lack fluency in their results. Thanks again: you have once again validated the wiki process for the benefit of mankind. -- 67.116.255.227 23:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to thank me—it's what I do. But always remember, with great power comes great responsibility. For great justice,--Eloquence* 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That Wired article just has the one sentence and the drawing of Angela, then goes on about Wikia for the rest of the paragraph. I was hoping for more non-Wikia content. I ripped out other links because they had only the one-liners about her, but I will leave the Wired one in for now. -- 67.116.255.227 00:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On a tangetially related matter: Is there something we can do to ensure that these biography infoboxes somehow drag in the Template:Persondata and just provide the same information. I am unclear about what should and should not be wikilinks, but it certainly feels like rather artifical duplication of data. I chose the just go and add the Persondata to Angela's page, but this seems like a exercise that is wasteful of my time and likely to implement inconsistent data in many biographies. -- 67.116.255.227 23:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There is very little structured data support in MediaWiki, so the answer is no. Duplication is common, check out George W. Bush as a standard example where the same data is duplicated in the intro, the infobox, and the persondata. There might be bots running that check for consistency, but I'm not aware of any such effort.-Eloquence* 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doyle

Thanks for catching the copyright violation, as I remarked on the talk page, I questioned its originality, but hadn't had time to follow up. Doc 03:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amarantine cover undeleted

Please explain what purpose that covers serves, other that decorating the article. If it doesn't then it must be deleted, according to Wikipedia fair use policy:

8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

Taw 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The album identifies the subject of the Amarantine article, which is the album Amarantine.--Eloquence* 16:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The cover identifies nothing. The article is about content of the package, not about the package. Pretty much nobody identifies CDs by their covers. Taw 21:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The cover is the first thing you will see when you buy the CD in a store, or look it up online. It uniquely identifies the work, as there are no two different albums with exactly the same cover. As far as an image (rather than a selection of sound samples) goes, it clearly meets the fair use criteria on Wikipedia, as also stated on the relevant licensing template, Template:Albumcover. From a legal standpoint, album and book covers are also among the safest content we can reproduce, as they are specifically designed for the purpose of selling the actual product. If you want to go on a fair use cleanup campaign, I suggest you focus your energies more productively on the use of celebrity photos. These are often used in biographies even when free content images are available because people want to use the "nicer photo."--Eloquence* 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What you're proposing is blanket permission to use any CD/DVD cover in Wikipedia, for whatever purpose. This is extremely far from the original idea about using fair use images on Wikipedia, according to which fair use images were to be used only when they are absolutely necessary, and the articles without them would be seriously lacking. If you want to change the fair use policy to allow the kind of decorative use, go on and start a vote on that. The way things are done now, decorative covers break Wikipedia policies and should be removed. Taw 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything. I'm citing established policy and practice. You are the one who is trying to change it.--Eloquence* 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thumbs up!

Sweet! I need to get more people to write about me, then do it again. ;-) --Eloquence* 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured pictures

Hey, I really appreciate your boldness here. I've been pushing for this reform for a while now, and had a lot of trouble getting the gears going. Thank you.--Pharos 04:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It was just a couple of sentences, but you're welcome. ;-) --Eloquence* 04:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Award

Just wanted to let you know that I'm touched - really. Your 'photographer's barnstar' means much more than any 'Featured' status. Thank you for making one of those moments that makes contributing to Wiki seem more than worthwhile. Thanks : )

THEPROMENADER 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and please do keep 'em coming! ;-) --Eloquence* 17:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Educate me

The article for Drupal came across my notice for a reason that escapes me. I use PERL, C, TCL/TK and a host of other languages. As I read the page for Drupal, it looks like advertisement. I say this while comparing it to other programming language articles. I had it tagged as such for about two (2) weeks with { {advert} }. There was no response, only more additions.

As such, I see it only as an advertisement - even with your good cleanup work. I'm inclined to retag it as advertisement (or at least some type of cleanup tag). At what point should wikipedia say "clean it up, limit it, or create your own wiki".

--meatclerk 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was definitely very ad-like, with a strong focus on establishing Drupal's notability and success and some clearly POV language. We don't generally delete articles if they are bad, especially if they're about such a big and important topic (in the open source CMS space, Drupal is pretty huge). I think it's acceptable now, but if you have specific objections, I would suggest you edit, comment on talk, or add an appropriate maintenance template.--Eloquence* 07:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to maintain a "Good Faith" approach. As we seem to agree on the tone of the article, I'll continue.

However, I know nothing about Drupal, nor am I interested. This includes editing the article. I really don't have an interest in deleting it, other than the reasons stated. As such, I'll continue by tagging with Advert and adding comments. I will refrain from deletion, unless it look really unreasonable.

Thanks again. --meatclerk 08:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Patrick

That sounds reasonable. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Panmosaic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Panmosaic.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. 213.39.18.130 12:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The new FAR/FARC process

Hi Eric (I hope I've got your first name right)

I noticed your comment about Emu on the FAC page, and wondered whether you'd be interested in dropping into WP:FAR occasionally (or often) to encourage, prod, critique, and—when the crunch comes—to declare "Keep" or "Remove"..

The new FAR process is now being swamped with nominations (currently 23 in FAR and 13 in FARC), and the four or five regulars are finding it difficult to service the needs of such a large process. The ideal is to encourage the guardians of the many substandard FAs to fix them; sometimes this happens, but all too often, a nomination is met with disinterest by those you'd have thought would be keen.

The contribution of more good reviewers there, particularly those who are focused on good writing, would have a powerful impact on the FA culture in WP.

Tony 08:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for the note about WP:FAR -- I was previously only aware of WP:FARC but not of the process that precedes it. I'll drop in from time to time, but I tend to spread out my energy across lots of things, so it's unlikely that I'll become a regular. ;-) --Eloquence*

[edit] Language template

Hi Eloquence, are you aware of Brian0918 and Raul's renewed attempt to cut languages from the Main Page language template? There is a discussion at Talk:Main Page that you might want to add your thoughts to. It also seems to me that this be an especially strange move heading into Wikimania, where we are attempting to demonstrate Wikipedia's internationalism and the English Wikipedia's (and its many American users) sensitivity to other Wikipedias. Best, Tfine80 15:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just posted a quick response.--Eloquence* 21:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hasselhoff Tag

Hi, while I would certainly have removed it if I were editing from home following a quick Google, I was at the time editing from work and didn't particularly want to have a search for porn stars showing up on the work logs (as I'm sure you can appreciate :). I chose to add the fact tag instead; in retrospect it may have been better to remove it and ask someone else to factcheck on the talk page. If the user in question has been adding hoax material to multiple pages, it's probably a good idea to warn them about it, because as it stands no-one has. Thanks for pointing this out, Ziggurat 01:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right you are! My mistake, excuse me please. Ziggurat 02:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photographs

Hello Is there a list photographs that are wanted for articles?, I think Wikipedia is a great project and would like to help out. Regards Charles Charles.Curling@gmail.com

[edit] Image:Mediawiki-gallery.png

Seems like an odd tag to use. It would be much better just to screengrab a gallery of PD images, and probably required by WP:FUC#1. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Alexandria-inscription.jpg

Hi Eloquence: you uploaded this image here a few years ago, and since then it's been uploaded to commons as commons:Image:Alexandria Library Inscription.jpg. Someone put a no source since tag on it, because, well, there's no source named. Do you happen to remember where you got the image? Thanks. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pi Unrolled

You commented on this animated GIF's Featured Picture nomination. I'm considering a redesign to incorporate concerns raised but I need more clarity. Please see User talk:John Reid/Pi/Unrolled#FP?. Thank you. John Reid 08:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinews

You should have a discussion with User:MER-C about this little act [2]. -anon

[edit] Logo Contest Question

Erik,

Are you still holding this contest? If so, what is the deadline and do you offer any prizes?

Smiley

Are you referring to the Free Content Definition logo contest? Or which one? I've organized a few. ;-) --Eloquence* 00:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:8btheater.png

[edit] Abdel Frasheri on de:

Hi Erik! I see that you have an account on the German Wikipedia and I wonder if you could help out by nominating the German de:Abdel Frasheri article for deletion? The corresponding article was deleted here on the English Wikipedia as unverifiable (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdel Frasheri), but needs to be removed from a number of other Wikipedias as well.

The non-German speaking, Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election

I have read your plateform as well as all the others and made a decision already. Davidpdx 09:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine; thanks for your response.--Eloquence* 09:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercial images

I know they're not allowed on en-WP. What is their status on the commons? Please reply on my talk. Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eric,

How are you doing?

Great work !

You might like to integrate and adapt some of the following text:

[edit] Libre Resources

Libre implies freedom to access, read, listen to, watch, or otherwise experience the resource; to learn with, copy, perform, adapt and use it for any purpose; and to contribute and share enhancements or derived works.

- concise one-liner for free content.

In a draft version I used the word "content" but RMS did not like it (the term is not complementary to authors and seems to imply that the "content" is just a commodity). At the other extreme, the word "creator" is not good as it ascribes "God-like" qualities to authors (i.e. prefer "authors" to "creators").

Also, central to the movement is a manifesto:

[edit] Libre Manifesto

Libre Communities value:

• the members and their diverse perspectives,
• the libre resources produced and the associated freedoms,
• the ability of communities to collaborate on managing the quality of shared resources, and
• the opportunity this freedom offers for networked communities to make a difference collectively, towards a sustainable world.

Free as in freedom and free speech: [3]

Cheerio for now, keep in touch :-).

Kim

[edit] Future

What do you think about it: meta:User:Przykuta/evolution of Projects ?

[edit] Congrats!

Mazel Tov! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do us proud on the Board. We're counting on you! :D ~Kylu (u|t) 07:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Eloquence. Use it for the good. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Stick to your guns. Haukur 11:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all. I will do my best not to disappoint you. You'll have to forgive me if I celebrate with a non-alcoholic Apfelschorle. ;-) --Eloquence* 15:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Miguel Andrade 21:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations - I am very happy you made it! -- mkrohn 00:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Eloquence. Have been following your valuable and dynamic contributions to the world of free content from the early days of InfoAnarchy.org and am very pleased to see you on the board. Oska 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Eloquence - congratulations, and I hope your passion for the mediawiki projects carries you through. Wizzy…☎ 13:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Eloquence. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated congratulations -- Samir धर्म 05:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panorama template

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I like the template and the way it displays a lot, but I played around with it a bit and found that it doesn't really suit my panoramas (unless they were to be displayed 500+ pixels high!) because of the proportions. In theory, one of my panoramas could be set up with that template in an article that would suit it being displayed very prominently, but I'm not sure that people would appreciate one image filling the page. A full 360 degree panorama with a very narrow vertical angle of view would be more suited to the scrolling template, as with the Frankfurt panorama. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PaulWicks

Please take action regarding PaulWicks :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PaulWicks

He is constantly falsely accusing people of being sock puppets in order to try to justify reverting them without reason or discussion.

I have just been proven not to be a sock puppet :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/General_Tojo_2

yet PaulWicks continues to revert anything I add based on that false claim :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parkinson%27s_disease&action=history

You have previously had to notify PaulWicks of making false sock puppet claims in order to justify his continuous reverts :

GT template on User talk:70.72.19.133

Why did you add the General Tojo sock template to this user's talk page? The template states that the user has been blocked, which does not appear to be the case, nor do I see any evidence for the claim of sock puppetry.--Eloquence* 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

--Gerard Doyle 14:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== you suck dude. you're a moron ==

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article review/Project MKULTRA

A featured article review has been begun for Project MKULTRA, which you originally added to the Brilliant Prose list. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Project MKULTRA. Andrew Levine 00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I dont understand

I havent edited anything on any of these pages that i was accused of editing.

Aye aye? I have never even seen this page!

[edit] Genesis

Your edit summary "-deleted images" [4] is insufficient explaination as to why you removed these images. Please explain here. I am assuming good faith and haven't rved your edits yet. Thanks AreJay 01:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pompeii-couple.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pompeii-couple.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fayum04.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fayum04.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Wiki Template

With regard to this, just thought I'd nudge things along a bit. WAS 4.250 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Database queries

Eloquence, you may remember me from Pretoria. At Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, I am looking for a way to pull a list from Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5, or any category, to generate a list of articles for a CD version of en:. Could you enlighten me as to how this can be done, or point me to someone who can ? Would this be done on a toolserver machine ?

On a similar topic, I would dearly love to get a login to one of your machines that has the full picture dump, for the same purpose. I could send you ssh keys. Discussion on this topic is a little scattered, I am afraid, but check Wikipedia:Version 0.5/To do, User talk:Walkerma, Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5, m:Wikipedia on CD/DVD, m:Static version tools, m:Talk:Special projects subcommittees/Static content Wizzy…☎ 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHEEL

Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors has put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guybrush in LOEG

I reverted your deletion on Guybrush's appearance in LOEG. WP:NOR is about research that appears first in Wikipedia. If someone else has said it before (and a link/source is provided), the rule doesn't apply. Pictureuploader 10:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rumsfeld-hussein.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei RFC

Eloquence, after lots of NPOV problems, I have recently done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. I don't know if you know much about Opus Dei-- I still don't actually know that much about them, but you strike me as a fair, honest judge of articles, and I have no clue what your religous point of view is, which makes you an ideal candidate to serve as a frehs pair of eyes. Could you look over the page and comment on whether the rewrite is an improvment and maybe help out in the ensuing discussion? --Alecmconroy 08:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Contributions

Hi. Prolific contributions. Great show!--Darrendeng 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:LEAD

I have proposed [5] a very bold wikiproject to have article's lead paragraphs conform to WP:LEAD, it could potentialy be an issue of debate as presently thousands of articles do not conform and would be tagged. I would very much appreciate your advice on the WP:LEAD talk page. Thanks FrummerThanThou 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philanthropist

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Philanthropist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Philanthropist. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. — Sebastian (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Can you help me becoming the admin of Pashto Wikitionary. i want to change the interface of that project into Pashto. i have already changed the interface of Pashto Wikipedia. what i need is to become a sysop of http://ps.wikitionary.org in order to be able to change that.

regards

Ahmed Najib Biabani

[edit] removal of mergefrom tag from Second Life

Thanks for catching the template tag- as you can see I obviously forgot to remove junk here and there when I was moving content between several articles at once :-P

Signpostmarv 11:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

Thank you very much for protecting this page. I had requested that yesterday and it was refused because it was on the front page, in spite of repeated vandalising and POV pushing. It's nice to bump into an administrator with common sense. Jeffpw 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Announcement

[edit] Image:Dobson.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dobson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Chowbok ☠ 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If policy has become more strict in this regard it should probably be deleted.--Eloquence* 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Fundraising

Some of the IRC people were trying to come up with fundraising ideas, and I thought Kasuga's Wikipe-tan character was just terribly cute and would be nifty to have on things such as mugs and baseball caps. I asked Kasuga about this (Q & A) and he seems to think it's a great idea! I'm of the understanding that you're aware of who runs our CafePress store and perhaps you could pass the idea along?

Thanks so very much for your time! ~Kylu (u|t) 00:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Life

Second Life is a Featured article candidate! frummer 03:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Sagan_small.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sagan_small.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Uday_dead.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Uday_dead.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias warning

The bias warning that you removed from the Japan article and placed on the talk page is not meant for the talk page. It is meant to be a warning to readers and should remain at the head of the article itself. Thanks.-Jefu 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.Jeffpw 09:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 years

It's been four years since you made this request for temporary adminship, that was not so temporary :-), and I see Uncle Ed was in a jovial mood that day. If you ever have an interest in filling in some of the missing information here, please do. Cheers, NoSeptember 14:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Fayum03.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fayum03.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Herculaneum_Fresco_001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Herculaneum_Fresco_001.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Use common sense. These are obvious ancient (!) public domain artworks. It is irrelevant what the source is.--Eloquence* 13:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Psychic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

1) You are the party tot his dispute, so you are absolutely the wrong person to send me a warning of any kind.

2) I did not revert, I made three different edits.--Eloquence* 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you are not reading the WP:3RR policy correctly, you have indeed reverted the same entry three times - please don't do a fourth time. And I absolutely can give you this warning, there is no policy that I am aware of that limits my ability to give warnings. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Revert. "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time." Even with the expanded definition we use in the application of 3RR to cover things like partial-reverts, the gradual editing of a contentious part of an article with the goal to achieve consensus is absolutely not a revert. In fact, it is a good faith process where you are expected to take part in trying to find a compromise wording.--Eloquence* 00:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:3RR, especially the part that says "An editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single page" If the goal is to find a compromise, then it should be done on the talk page - not by edit warring. what you're doing is not "gradual editing" it is out-and-out edit warring. I know your background and experience on Wikipedia, but believe me, I know what I'm talking about here. And, to be clear, I am taking part in a good faith exercise to find a compromise, that's why I'm on the talk page explaining my position in great detail. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the exeptions to the 3RR rule. I don't see your reasoning above listed among them. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I also know what I'm talking about. Gradual change to an article is emphatically not a reversion, and not covered by any of the definitions of 3RR. It is not a partial revert but an edit.--Eloquence* 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, hopefully you won't do it again and we won't need to find out. I must say that I'm sorry, I probably could have been a lot nicer about this whole thing by just dropping you a note instead of the "official" template. But after being besieged and seeing others abused by some of the more cynical and vicious skeptics on Wikipedia has made me very wary - not that you're a cynical and vicious skeptic...:), I tend to nip things like edit warring and personal attacks in the bud before they can get too far out of hand. And believe me, they can get way out of hand. I know you're doing this in good faith, and please accept that I am too. We, just, uh, disagree... :D Dreadlocke ☥ 01:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I am not easily offended. I just feel that this kind of gradual editing is very important part of consensus process; it has helped me many times to find a compromise with another party without necessarily having a lengthy discussion on the talk page. But it only works, of course, if both parties are operating under the assumption that the other is not merely trying to "fight it out", which I guess wasn't sufficiently well established here. :-)--Eloquence*

Cool, you seemed like a good guy with a lot of experince on Wikipedia, and I was kinda surprised to see what I view as "edit warring" as your method of getting your changes in. I tend to follow the idea that discussions on the talk page are the way to go. And to me, changes to the opening statement are rather significant, so I try to follow the "contentious" tagging at the top of the talk page, even if the change is just one word...especially a WTA...  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 01:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After all our arguing, another editor came in and put the best version so far. I think it might address both our concerns. Wouldn't that be a miracle...! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After our disagreement over what constitues a 3RR "revert", I checked with an administrator who handles 3RR issues all the time. Here is his answer:

Honestly, I'd consider it 3 reverts. Generally, the 3RR covers exact reverts, but it also covers edits which are substantially reverts, i.e. where one or two words are changed over and over again. And in this case, Eloquence was changing the same words over and over again. His edits were 98% the same. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This backs my view of the edits you made as being reverts that fall under WP:3RR, which is quite fortunate, becuase if your reading were correct that would lead to an exponential increase in edit warring across Wikipedia. Your loophole would allow reverts that aren't "exact" with only a slight change necessary to avoid violating 3RR. I think you and I and others would probably end up in endless edit or wheel wars, which would be tragic. In controversial articles, such as Psychic, I strongly suggest discussing changes on the talk page instead of the method of what I and others refer to as "edit warring". Dreadlocke ☥ 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair opinion, but I continue to disagree; the variations were of exactly the word which was in dispute and an attempt to reach a compromise wording through gradual editing. They were not "reverts" by any reasonable definition. By the way, if you review the recent history of the article, you will find that Martinphi is trying to find a middle ground in a similar way; by your definition, he has "reverted" repeatedly and not left a single comment on the talk page about his edits.--Eloquence* 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree with me and an experienced admin, but I still urge you to be cautious - and I'm sure you will be! As for Martinphi, I looked though some of his recent edits and I don't see where he was engaged in an edit war or reverting in such a manner as to approach violating [{WP:3RR]]. Policy and guideline apply to all editors equally, and I would definitely leave him a message about engaging in edit warring or potential 3RR violations. If you want to provide me the diffs where you believe he violated or came close to violating 3RR, I would be more than happy to communicate such to him. Dreadlocke ☥ 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with inputbox extension.

Erik,

I am not sure if this is the proper place for this question. Please let me know if there is a better forum.

I am having problems with the inputbox extension. Whenever I add the requireonce statement to the LocalSettings file, the script "breaks". In other words, the site wont load.

I have tested other extensions and they seem to work fine. I am using version 1.6.9.

Here is the contents of my inputbox.php file:

<?php

/**

* This file contains the main include file for the Inputbox extension of 
* MediaWiki. 
*
* Usage: require_once("path/to/inputbox.php"); in LocalSettings.php
*
* This extension requires MediaWiki 1.5 or higher.
*
* @author Erik Moeller <moeller@scireview.de>
*  namespaces search improvements partially by
*  Leonardo Pimenta <leo.lns@gmail.com> 
* @copyright Public domain
* @license Public domain
* @version 0.1.1
*/

/**

* Register the Inputbox extension with MediaWiki
*/ 

$wgExtensionFunctions[] = 'registerInputboxExtension'; $wgExtensionCredits['parserhook'][] = array( 'name' => 'Inputbox', 'author' => 'Erik Moeller', 'url' => 'http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Inputbox', 'description' => 'Allow inclusion of predefined HTML forms.', );

/**

* Sets the tag that this extension looks for and the function by which it
* operates
*/

function registerInputboxExtension() {

   global $wgParser;
   $wgParser->setHook('inputbox', 'renderInputbox');

}

/**

* Renders an inputbox based on information provided by $input.
*/

function renderInputbox($input, $params, &$parser) { $inputbox=new Inputbox( $parser ); getBoxOption($inputbox->type,$input,'type'); getBoxOption($inputbox->width,$input,'width',true); getBoxOption($inputbox->preload,$input,'preload'); getBoxOption($inputbox->editintro,$input,'editintro'); getBoxOption($inputbox->defaulttext,$input,'default'); getBoxOption($inputbox->bgcolor,$input,'bgcolor'); getBoxOption($inputbox->buttonlabel,$input,'buttonlabel'); getBoxOption($inputbox->searchbuttonlabel,$input,'searchbuttonlabel'); getBoxOption($inputbox->namespaces,$input,'namespaces'); getBoxOption($inputbox->id,$input,'id'); getBoxOption($inputbox->labeltext,$input,'labeltext'); getBoxOption($inputbox->br, $input, 'break'); getBoxOption($inputbox->hidden, $input, 'hidden'); $inputbox->lineBreak(); $inputbox->checkWidth();

$boxhtml=$inputbox->render(); # Maybe support other useful magic words here $boxhtml=str_replace("Eloquence",$parser->getTitle()->getText(),$boxhtml); if($boxhtml) { return $boxhtml; } else {

return '

';

} }

function getBoxOption(&$value,&$input,$name,$isNumber=false) {

     if(preg_match("/^\s*$name\s*=\s*(.*)/mi",$input,$matches)) {

if($isNumber) { $value=intval($matches[1]); } else { $value=htmlspecialchars($matches[1]); } } }

class Inputbox { var $type,$width,$preload,$editintro, $br; var $defaulttext,$bgcolor,$buttonlabel,$searchbuttonlabel; var $hidden;

function InputBox( &$parser ) { $this->parser =& $parser; }

function render() { if($this->type=='create' || $this->type=='comment') { return $this->getCreateForm(); } elseif($this->type=='search') { return $this->getSearchForm(); } elseif($this->type=='search2') { return $this->getSearchForm2(); } else { return false; } } function getSearchForm() { global $wgUser, $wgContLang;

$sk=$wgUser->getSkin(); $searchpath = $sk->escapeSearchLink(); if(!$this->buttonlabel) { $this->buttonlabel = wfMsgHtml( 'tryexact' ); } if(!$this->searchbuttonlabel) { $this->searchbuttonlabel = wfMsgHtml( 'searchfulltext' ); }

$type = $this->hidden ? 'hidden' : 'text'; $searchform=<<<ENDFORM

                                       $usernamespace = str_replace("**","",$usernamespace);
                                       $checked =" checked";
                               }

ENDFORM2; //Return form values return $searchform . $searchform2 . $searchform3; }

function getSearchForm2() { global $wgUser;

$sk=$wgUser->getSkin(); $searchpath = $sk->escapeSearchLink(); if(!$this->buttonlabel) { $this->buttonlabel = wfMsgHtml( 'tryexact' ); }

$output = $this->parser->parse( $this->labeltext, $this->parser->getTitle(), $this->parser->getOptions(), false, false ); $this->labeltext = $output->getText();

$this->labeltext = str_replace('

', , $this->labeltext); $this->labeltext = str_replace('

', , $this->labeltext);

$type = $this->hidden ? 'hidden' : 'text'; $searchform=<<<ENDFORM

<form action="$searchpath" class="bodySearch" id="bodySearch{$this->id}">

</form>';

return $searchform; }

function getCreateForm() { global $wgScript;

$action = htmlspecialchars( $wgScript ); if($this->type=="comment") { $comment='<input type="hidden" name="section" value="new" />'; if(!$this->buttonlabel) { $this->buttonlabel = wfMsgHtml( "postcomment" ); } } else { $comment=; if(!$this->buttonlabel) { $this->buttonlabel = wfMsgHtml( "createarticle" ); } } $type = $this->hidden ? 'hidden' : 'text'; $createform=<<<ENDFORM

ENDFORM; return $createform; }

function lineBreak() { # Should we be inserting a
tag? $cond = ( strtolower( $this->br ) == "no" ); $this->br = $cond ?  : '
'; }

/** * If the width is not supplied, set it to 50 */ function checkWidth() { if( !$this->width || trim( $this->width ) == ) $this->width = 50; } }?>

Do you see any problems with the file that I should change?

Thank you for any suggestions

[edit] pageview counter

On 26 August 2006 you have added a link to a third-party logger to MediaWiki:Common.js. It seems to be a violation of Wikimedia privacy policy. Please explain the purpose of sending page views data to a third party, and either remove this link or update the privacy policy accordingly. · Naive cynic · 05:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The counter is run on the servers of Wikimedia Germany with the informed consent of the Wikimedia tech team. Which privacy policy section do you believe this violates? The policy only states that we do not release personally identifiable information, not that we do not use client-side scripting to sample Wikimedia visits for statistical purposes.--Eloquence* 05:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about Private logging and Sharing information with third parties. Despite being a sample of user's page views, this data still contains personal and identifiable information. Is enough control exercised over the exported data to ensure compliance of its use with Wikimedia privacy policy? If it is the case, everything seems to be ok. Still, it might be a good idea to explicitly state it somewhere. · Naive cynic · 09:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What personal and identifiable information do you see?--Eloquence* 10:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Which pages have been viewed from which IP at which time. By which logged-in Wikipedia contributor (by trivial aggregation with publicly available article histories). Which pages have been viewed by the same user, even if their IP is not unique (e.g. by use of browser sessions). · Naive cynic · 11:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this is published. This is the data that is actually generated from this. I fail to see how there's any privacy issue here, since this is all done by a Wikimedia volunteer who has express permission from WMF to do so (using German chapter resources in this case).--Eloquence* 11:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for explanation. · Naive cynic · 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:The Thadman/Give Back Our Membership

Hi, you may be interested in this petition, and the related discussion on the talk page. As you were the person who altered the byelaws, you may be the person to explain it to people so they understand the reasoning behind your action. Regards. SilkTork 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not "the person who altered the bylaws"; I am one of the Board members who unanimously voted to do so. See this message for an explanation.--Eloquence* 13:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice copyright statement

I just want to offer my compliments on the last two paragraphs of this email. We need more people like you around here who really grok the free content movement. --Cyde Weys 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Give Back Our Membership"

Hi, thanks for your responses at User talk:The Thadman/Give Back Our Membership. I was somewhat concerned when I saw it, and as I could see the Foundation had done nothing wrong I tried to argue in its favour (most of the somewhat lengthy argument is now on my talk page), but as a newcomer I think I got somewhat out of my depth. Your input was much more civil and informative, and obviously carries a lot more weight than mine. Thanks again – Qxz 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Yes I was. I misread the label. I thought that it was the actual user page, not the talk page. I apologize. -- The Hybrid 20:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Mercury god.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mercury god.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Checklist

Hi, Your changes to the AWB checklist have been reverted

Please do not change things such as this without consulting the people who maintain AWB

Changing that, caused everyone to be disabled on AWB, AWB is looking for * NOT #

Thanks

Reedy Boy 20:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, though there was no notice about this (or indeed any warning about editing) on the page.--Eloquence* 20:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SIP

Thanks for fixing the SIP article. Can't imagine why someone would want to dump a page of useful information for something so inarticulate as random keystrokes.

Perhaps they were trying to test the infinite monkey theorem.--Eloquence* 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

[6]. That's Erik, totally class. --131.111.8.98 23:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay

Hi Eloquence, I noticed you wrote Essjay a very stern message regarding his identity thingy. I was just wondering when the last time you thanked him for all his work was, since most of it - checkusers, vandal blocks etc. - is completely independent of his identity. I figure you must do it often. Milto LOL pia 04:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an "identity thingy". It is a case of fraudulent credentials that were systematically used in content debates.--Eloquence* 12:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's true, and I had originally not been aware of that, but now I am. So for content purposes, it's definitely not cool, but I think his all-around contribs, which are mostly as a maintenance guy, have been very positive. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue with you, I've offered my opinion and can agree to disagree. Milto LOL pia 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Slashdot on this sad affair, well said. .. dave souza, talk 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Viking

Wow, fast work adding the link to Gutenberg's version of Space Viking!
—wwoods 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm on the Gutenberg RSS feed :-) --Eloquence* 23:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creative Commons 3.0

Do you know if there has been any discussion, decision, or Wikimedia position as to whether the Creative Commons 3.0 licenses (BY and BY-SA) are considered free licenses for the purposes of Wikimedia sites? That is, do you know if it OK for CC 3.0 content (images or text) to appear on the various Wikimedia sites? —RP88 06:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A member of the board

thinks MY ebay quip was funny! -swoon- this is better than any barnstar i could ever receive ^_^ Jellocube27

[edit] Heroes Disambig

I added a comment to Talk:Hero (disambiguation) where I see you have commented as well. Do you think with this new info (that the TV series is the 12th most viewed page) that something can be done? -Ravedave 23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Surprised"?

Hi. I note that you wrote that you were surprised that every image in the article was unfree. Can I ask why that surprised you? Jkelly 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to our conversation, this might be revealing. Jkelly 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Your words of thanks

Thanks for your thanks (if that even makes sense), it's real kind of you to say so. Dunno if you noticed (in fact, it's probably the whole reason you noticed me at all...), but you might be interested to hear that I'm currently attempting to get my first FA accepted as such... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] planet userbox

Cool. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] m:Wikimedia servers/hardware orders

Hi Eloquence, could you please update this page with the recent hardware orders, or ask the responsible person for this information (the PR officer?). Thank you, and greetings, Longbow4u 05:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia budget/2007/Q1/hardware/purchase 1. Ok, my question is answered. Good to see things are moving forward. Hope this recent office crisis is not stopping things at foundation. Greetings, Longbow4u 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar

Out of curiosity, were you aware of the proposals concerning the sidebar on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? Just wondering. The Transhumanist   08:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I had a look .. this is a quick fix to prevent the navigation bar from becoming too link heavy, I'm sure we can come up with something better over time.--Eloquence* 08:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well now I know who to go to for quick fixes.  :) The Transhumanist   08:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stable versions

I believe you updated the roadmap regarding the contractor who is working on this. Do you have any contact information for him? I would like to know if the development is complete and when we might see the feature live on en.wikipedia.org site. If there is still work to do, I may be able to help as well. I am a programmer. Eiler7 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image policy

The new policy is creating some heated debate on en.wikinews. I'm assuming you check here more often than there. This needs input to calm things down and lay out the scope of what we're allowed under the new policy. Under the new policy we'd end up not just having to delete photos, but delete articles that are photojournalism works. Your posting on the page was fairly laid back, but it is seriously going to piss off a lot of contributors if we can't use CC-BY-ND. --Brianmc 19:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog added

Hi,

your blog should now show up in the aggregator. I notice that you're not providing a filtered feed; please make sure to post only Wikipedia-related materials to the blog (we're trying to keep the Planet very topic focused, since it will include lots of blogs). Thanks for joining; if you like userboxes, there's one at Template:User Planet. ;-) --Eloquence* 04:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. I don't plan on using the blog for anything not related to Wikipedia, and if I do I will provide a filtered feed and make sure that it is updated on Planet Wikipedia before starting. I don't anticipate that happening though. Thanks again! —METS501 (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar to above

Thanks for adding mine as well! I'm not normally one for userboxen, but might make an exception in this case.

Also I love the new "Freedom defined" graphics! I thought that since you release your edits into the public domain as well you might like the new box I created at User:The wub/Licensing. I plan to create more for other licenses if I can find time. the wub "?!" 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] n:Image:ShahRukhKhan MadameTussauds.jpg

Does this publicity photo count as fair use? It depicts a statue of a living person, as well as the back of a random living person. -- Zanimum 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)