User talk:Erolos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Erolos and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

Contents

[edit] Chandler Bing spoiler warning

I reinserted your spoiler warning, and am now watching the page. Hopefully, this should take care of it. Oh, and please sign your posts on talk pages (see above for instructions). Best wishes and happy editing, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading image to Gay Times

Hi. I'm probably not the best one to ask about this, but to upload a picture, you first need to save it to your computer. Give it an appropriate name, ensure you've got the copyright stuff covered, and then use the upload file link (you'll see it at the left, under Special pages) to copy it to Wikipedia. After you've done that you can place it on a page. Exploding Boy 16:40, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm really not the person to go to on technical questions, as a string of roommates will attest, but I've posted your question to Wikipedia:Help desk. Your reply should come there. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:25, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

[edit] hi

yeah, isn't it weird how the categories aren't working... still?? Kzzl

[edit] Glad you saw it

Glad you saw the category issue as well. It's been going on for my measure for two days now, but does not seem to affect sub- or higher level categories of an affected category, just individual categories. Lyellin 12:51, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] D&D God Symbols

At Shar (goddess) you changed "black" to "Black" with the reason "Regularised symbol capitalising". What's the reasoning behind this? ··gracefool |☺ 02:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I put a capital letter at the beginning of the symbol description for all the gods, because it made it clear where the symbol description began and the text preceeding it ended. It's fair enough if you don't think it looks nice or whatever, but we then need another way to distinguish the symbol from the other bits. -Erolos 11:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Why? You could create a List of symbols of deities or something if you want to separate that information. Otherwise I don't see why it's necessary. ··gracefool |☺ 20:13, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 'Ello fellow D&D fan

Thanks for all your work on Forgotten Realms articles. I've just created a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Articles about fiction to address the issue I'm sure you've noticed on which fictional subjects deserve articles of their own. Have a look and say what you think. ··gracefool |☺ 23:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I've done a major rewrite of the policy - I was approaching it in the wrong way. It is no longer a poll, but an attempt to reach a consensus. It is also more general, basically an amendment to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It is now called Wikipedia:Importance. Again, support or criticism is appreciated. ··gracefool |☺ 05:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT subcategories

Hi Erolos,

At last somebody to talk to - I had the impression everybody had forgotten about the issue and that I was the only one having blank nights over it. Now I don't have to exaggerate: it was only one blank night. Further I studied as much as I could all those "wikipedia:" articles explaining NPOV and conflict resolution (e.g. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), etc...

First remark: I did not "decide" anything, least of all did I "decide" that the voting was tainted. It was my opinion it was, and I wanted to express that opinion. Now, after having done more reading, I'm still more convinced it was, BUT this is still only my opinion, and nothing of a "decision".

Second remark: What I appended after the vote was too long, I could have made it much shorter, e.g. by pointing out that voting over this issue could be considered to have at least an angle of Heteronormativity - if you read that article I'm sure you'll get a feel about what I tried to say, but only managed in much clumsier words.

Third remark: POV is not the same as non-NPOV. If wikipedia states that it is all about NPOV, the wikipedia definition thereof can be reduced to something like:

NPOV = POV 1 + POV 2 + POV 3 + ... + POV n

"objectivity" is clearly rejected in the NPOV article, while objectivity relates to "absence" of POV's, which is in fact deemed impossible by Wikipedia, and even if it were possible theoretically, something that would not work for this WIKI type of encyclopedia. Resolving the conflict over the "Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual people" category in a wikipedia manner is about trying to find a way to save your POV as well as mine, as well all the others (surely not easy, but I'm trying).

Fourth remark: "consensus": consensus is when all parties agree (from Latin "con-sentire", feel/vote the same thing). Wikipedia discourages the model of trying to find consensus through vote, if other ways are possible. Also, as a rule, votes where both parties are close are upheld, e.g. Wikipedia:Blocking_policy/Personal_attacks where votes were upheld at 33 to 24 (which is less close than 11 to 9), asking for a reformulation of the issue about which there was a vote, which might enable to get something closer to "consensus". Maybe something of this kind could be attempted to get out of the "GLB people" category difference of opinion.

Let me finish by mentioning some other things I found when browsing wikipedia:

  • "GLB people" category was put up for deletion by Postdlf at the same day as a revert war between UtherSRG and Guanaco. Both UtherSRG and Guanaco are admins (or "sysops") and should have known better than to resolve conflicts by revert wars. Also they should know better than to jump from a revert war immediately to a vote, without trying to solve the conflict in another way (maybe they did, but I did find no sign of that). But most importantly if all three (Postdlf, UtherSRG and Guanaco) agreed to put it up for vote, while impossible to resolve the conflict in another way, they should have tried to find consensus about what exactly the vote was going to be about: for Postdlf it was clearly about making impossible to create any gay-related category, while in appearance it was only about this particular "GLB people" category. Note that voting on a "categories for deletion" page is at least a short "polling" or "survey" procedure, and that there is an article that gives some useful tips & tricks about how to avoid that a "polling" increases dissentment, instead of reducing it: Wikipedia:Survey guidelines.
  • Something else I remarked was that the UtherSRG - Guanaco revert war was not a usual revert war, but a "robotised category assignment" revert war, probably affecting more than a hundred articles at a time (i.e. 5 times on august 14th). Yes, it is my opinion that they both stepped out of line, and that this was increased by the massiveness of the reverts, possibly about a thousand individual article reverts... So maybe here is another way of putting the problem: Can "robotised category assignment" be used for articles on PEOPLE, where the category is about something else than their established profession? My answer to that would be a clear NO, because if this is further allowed in wikipedia, a lot of the most interesting categories will in the end end up in the dustbin. Note that being interesting is one of the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia, see NPOV tutorial.

So as a first further attempt to solve the dissentment over the Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual People category, I propose I add a note to the page of that category stating that that category should better not be used for robotised category assignment, because the material is too sensitive: assignment should only occur as the result of individuals having read or worked on the article, after they are sure & convinced the assignment for that single article is NPOV. Maybe also better that, in this scenario, the categorisation is removed robotically first, so that a fresh start can be taken (Note that I'm no admin and can not proceed to this second part of the scenario). Is a consensus on such procedure possible?

Erolos, I'll mention this here communication I put on your talk page, in Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/unresolved. Depending on reactions I'll set the first step of what I proposed in the previous paragraph.

Francis Schonken 08:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken IP block

If you use an ISP that gives you a dynamic IP address, it probably wasn't something you did, but rather something the last person to use it did... Evercat 17:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Re: :-)

Thanks for your kind words.

PS: You should try out the Xenosaga series of videogames. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:19, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drizzt Do'Urden

Nice job! → JarlaxleArtemis 00:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh… User:209.152.80.54 did that huge contribution to the Drizzt article.… You still did a nice job with your minor edits, though.… → JarlaxleArtemis 00:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Realms categories

Thanks for fixing all the FR categories that were changed. → JarlaxleArtemis 22:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outsiders?

I have been playing D&D and various variants and other RPGs for about twelve years now. What about you? Radiant_>|< 12:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • That's okay. But I wasn't actually suggesting to delete any content; I was suggesting some renaming and merging of categories to make the categorization more consistent and comprehensible. Radiant_>|< 09:37, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to the Forgotten Realms project

Hi,

We are working on a Forgotten Realms Project to map Toril (mostly Faerûn, at the present). Since you contributed quite a lot on a Forgotten Realms-specific entry, I'd like to invite you to join the project, so we could improve the “Mapping the Realms” project.

The goal is to create a sort of World Factbook for the Realms. This means:

  • A consistent content
  • Use of templates
  • Entries should be limited to “sovereign places”: states and free cities, as well a moderately-inhabited place such as the Western Highlands.

On top of this, we also plan to cover Lost Empires, such as Pelvuria or Imaskar and, of course, Netheril

Main contributors are presently

If you know some other person who would be interested, feel free to forward the invitation!

Feel free to take a look. We hope to see you soon mapping the Realms with us! Reply to David Latapie 12:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now, we're having a IM conversation with another editor. The best is that you come and see waht we are doing so you want have to participate tha much later. julian37@ifrance.com on MSN, and we'll make a conference with 3 persons
Reply to David Latapie 15:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I added you to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms Reply to David Latapie 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Realms/Baldur's Gate cats

Hi, I saw you just reverted your edit on Irenicus to reinstate the FR cat. I think you did the right thing in taking it off to start with - there's no reason in having him (or other BG characters) categorized as both FR and BG characters. It is like having someone categorized both as "English band" and "English heavy metal band" - or whatever, you get the idea.. Poulsen 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You could argue though, that as a part of the Baldur's Gate series the Baldur's Gate novels fit right into the Baldur's Gate subcategory of Forgotten Realms as well, and thus only needs one cat. For reference, I've only read the first novel, which featured Xzar, Montaron, Khalid, Jaheira and Xan, and no other NPCs (short summary). Poulsen 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess you're right, it would become my subjective ruling on who are in and who aren't, especially as there's no guidelines in the cat descriptions of who belongs in there. If you're giving me free hands, I'll add a description to the category:Baldur's Gate series characters splitting the characters into already known FR characters, and characters introduced by the BG series:
The main article for this category is Baldur's Gate NPCs.

The Baldur's Gate series characters are fictional characters introduced in the Baldur's Gate series of computer role-playing games, set in the world of the Forgotten Realms. Many characters already known from the Forgotten Realms setting make appearences in the series, for those characters see the Category of Forgotten Realms characters.

What do you think? Poulsen 09:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. Poulsen 16:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:Mgiertych.jpeg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mgiertych.jpeg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified 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 media 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 qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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 media, consider checking 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 Wikipedia 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. Stan 14:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Forgotten Realms request on wizards.com

Hi,

I just posted a request for assistance for anyone interested on the WotC forum. Just so you might be interested to know - and maybe to participate.

Address is http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=712010.

Have a nice day
David Latapie (✒ | @) 12:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jarlaxles State

About the Jarlaxle page, a the end of Servant of the Shard It explains something about Jarlaxle being sacrificed by his own family. Does this mean that Jarlaxle is a Zin-Carla? Jamo 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation.

Heya, I notice your userpage says you are interested in editing articles on gay culture, and I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/o/User_talk%7EErolos_e3a8.html"