Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
*[http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Arturo+Cruz&dbname=enwiki Edits of Arturo Cruz] |
*[http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Arturo+Cruz&dbname=enwiki Edits of Arturo Cruz] |
||
*[http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Walter+Ching&dbname=enwiki User:Walter Ching Edits of walter Ching] |
*[http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Walter+Ching&dbname=enwiki User:Walter Ching Edits of walter Ching] |
||
: It's fairly obvious that OD is "looking after" the article. The Mormons are doing the same with "their" articles. It surprises me that Scientology hasn't done it yet. I have given up most hope for neutrality on religion articles in Wikipedia, but I'm not going to let obviously biased work slip through the only approval process that we have.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]][[User:Eloquence/CP|*]] 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:55, 25 September 2005
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)
uwe
hallo Erik! Can you copy all my images to commons and teach me how to use them from there (or at least those of the Antarctic krill page - we want to make some translations to Danish, Norwegian, Spanish and German- I put a collection of most of them into a gallery - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kils/gallery - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Krilleyekils - Guten Tag Uwe Kils 13:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Apology for Eequor (2nd) RfA comment
I apologize for the tone of my earlier comment. It's very easy to become frustrated with things sometimes and fall into unnecessary negative commentary. This is exactly why I try to avoid most of the bureaucratic aspects of Wikipedia. It's also not been a great week for me (as I've had my ops removed on the Wikipedia IRC channel and have received no further response about it). Anyway, that's about all. Bumm13 15:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Bumm13,
- no problem. I was worried that I might have done something in the past which upset you. I have restored your access level on #wikipedia (apparently removed by Snowspinner). Please tell Snowspinner to talk to me if he wants to change it.--Eloquence* 16:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
response from London
Uwe wants to share this with you (from his talk page):
Hello Kils
Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me. Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good. I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.
Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).
Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
that feels good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill
did you see who gave the picture of the day? take care Uwe Kils 23:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
images uwe
hallo Erik, danke fuer die nachricht, mach ich gleich Uwe Kils Klönschnack 11:56, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Image:Krill.jpg Image:Krillhatchingkils.gif Image:Kilsheadkils.jpg Image:Krill filter feeding.jpg Image:Filterkrillkils2.gif Image:Krillicekils.jpg Image:Krillspitballkils3.jpg Image:Bioluminescencekils.jpg Image:Krilllobsterkils.gif Image:Krilleyekils.jpg Image:Krilldistribution.jpg Image:Krillicekils.gif Image:Krillcatch.gif Image:Filterkrillkils.jpg Image:Krillfilter2kils.jpg Image:Krillfilter3kils.jpg Image:Krillanatomykils.jpg
diese waere ein guter Start, dann kann Marlene in Daenemark loslegen
hab ein schoenes Wochenende Uwe Kils Klönschnack 13:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
wikiversity
Danke fuer die Nachricht -changes it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kils/Virtual_University - hab ne gute Reise Uwe Kils 11:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's a FAC again. Could you quickly just state that your previous objection has not been addressed yet? Thanks :) --mav 03:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suggestion
I thought I should message you about this idea since your directly connected to the developers. My suggestion is with regards to image licensing. I see that many who upload images fail to tag them. This is a big problem and I have to chase many uploaders to tag the images (often stunning) before it can be used here. What I propose to have is, a drop down box which has all the tags, alongside the upload summary. This would also help newbies who are not conversant with wikipedia image tagging, forcing them to atleast read/notice the policy. Its a simple way to reduce our burgeoning headache. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
The Shacht letter
Thanks for taking the thought and effort to trim down the reference to it, I think it does provide helpful context now and flows well. My main concern was that the article is too long (but ok) and AH's truly significant business alliances began in Bavaria seven or eight years earlier. This is one of the most difficult articles on WP to maintain (as I'm sure you're acutely aware) and I appreciate the way you handled the edit! Wyss 30 June 2005 05:27 (UTC)
Judith Reisman
In response to your question about The Lancet review of Reisman's book on Alfred Kinsey, the omitted section does not really qualify the main quote. However, reading it in context makes it clear that it is a book review, and not any serious academic comment.
The closest thing to criticism is the following "At the one-third mark the book switches target to the "liberal" codes of sexual morality and sex education that have been built, it is alleged, on the Kinsey findings."
Perhaps the best thing to really redress that article would be to increase the biographical information (it is about her after all), and her qualifications, or lack thereof, to be pontificating about Kinsey... Limegreen 1 July 2005 04:46 (UTC)
FYI:
I have made some contributions to the site. Case in point:
13:11, 11 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Template:MTGsets (Portal is now DCI Sanctioned) and some RFD requests.
Spoken Wikipedia template
I think you just need to refresh your stylesheet cache. — Chameleon 2 July 2005 10:39 (UTC)
- You're right, thanks. I'm not too fond of mucking with out-of-body UI elements, but as long as it's not broken, I can tolerate it.--Eloquence* July 2, 2005 10:42 (UTC)
Right click to edit
If I recall correctly, it was you who originally wrote the "right click section title to edit" software? Well it doesn't seem to be working currently. I've tried on Firefox and Explorer... Evercat 5 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
- Someone rewrote it, and unfortunately it is presently broken if not used in conjunction with the "[edit]" links. A workaround is to enable both features, and to hide the [edit] links via user CSS, as in User:Eloquence/monobook.css.--Eloquence* July 5, 2005 18:11 (UTC)
Another bug report for you: remember the section editing bug that, in the event of an edit conflict, could cause the duplication of the entire article? We seem to be seeing something like that again, at 2005 London transport explosions (and its talk page, for that matter)... Evercat 7 July 2005 11:00 (UTC)
- The above bug should be fixed now, by the way. As for the duplication - I think this may be BugZilla:275. It's being worked on.--Eloquence*
images to commons
hallo Erik! ich hab einige Photos auf commons geladen. Wie packt man sie da in die Kategorien, bzw. oeffnet neue, wie Oceanography - viele Gruesse Uwe Kils July 7, 2005 21:10 (UTC)
Your comment in Wikicities
I'm translating "Why use Wikicities?", and I don't understand the sentences
The FF-Wiki has no copyright assignment on the edit screen and no copyright notice in the footer. The Intro claims that "all original content on this site is copyright-free", but that claim is of dubious validity if contributors have not explicitly assigned their contributions to the PD.
Can you explain these? thx
- This was originally in a dicussion where an external wiki's copyright policies were mentioned. Feel free to refactor the page so it makes sense outside the original context.--Eloquence* 04:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Looking forward 2 years with you...
:-) Anthere
Drawing
I don't know WP policy exactly but I guess that "fan art" or a fan drawing is not acceptable, can you point me to a policy that allows it? WP is an encyclopedia... zen master T 22:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- My personal interpretation is that an encyclopedia should use official real images for the sake of accuracy. Fan art has a place on the internet, just not in an encyclopedia. zen master T 23:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion a rough sketch is not appropriate in a biographical article and publicity photos are generally available under fairuse. zen master T 00:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should propose a WP policy on this, until then I consider it more reasonable to believe sketches are inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Having no image is prefered to a sketch, this isn't a case of free as in freedom vs non-free images, this is a case of inapplicability in an encyclopedia. Technically, a sketch is original research? zen master T 01:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
No, a photo (assuming it is unaltered) is a factual representation of something or of what happened, a sketch on the other hand is an original research interpretation. Someone creating a chart or graph from data is not original research if the data itself comes from a citable source. In my opinion the standards for images should be even higher in biographical articles. And there is no requirement that every article must have an image, in many cases I've seen them distract from article quality and certainly they make the page load more slowly. "Featured article status" in at least some cases is a popularity contest of how much random stuff can be wikilinked and how the article looks, not whether the content is the most relevant and contextual. I also consider it a form of vandalism if someone is trying to test the boundries of wikipedia policy, pro sketch folks should go to the talk page first (potentially disrupting wikipedia to illustrate an undefined area of policy).
I apologize for not explicitly noting the removal of the Katie Holmes sketch in my check in comment but at the time I considered its removal to be obviously the right thing to do ("general clean up") and you have not yet made a case that I was wrong (are you trying?). In fact, also at the time, it seemed to me like someone was trying to damage the quality of the article and WP in general with that sketch, it made WP seem less serious of an encyclopedia and fanboi-ish. To repeat, a sketch in my intrpretation is woefully inappropriate in an encyclopedia generally and a biographical article especially, what is the historical biographical relevance of a fan sketch to an encyclopedia? zen master T 02:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding ee.pl: it's not playing nice with subpages
I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is the best place to comment on this, but I have corrected a flaw in ee.pl. Apparently, it didn't work so well on my OS (Linux), when it was creating/editing Subpages. (It would assume that the namespace before the "/" was a folder and would complain that it didn't exist. I just entered a line where it would convert the "/" to two underscores -- simple fix, really.)
I managed to fix it and am willing to e-mail (or upload!) the corrections to you. Just let me know. Thanks. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sent. Let me know if you have any problems! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 03:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Looks fine. The link to Help:External editors is intentional; ideally, every wiki should have local copies of the help pages on Meta which are updated regularly (automatically or otherwise). We have templates for this; see the now created Help:External editors. By the way, one thing I would really like is a little bookmarklet to launch external editing only on demand. It would need to construct a URL of the form . Perhaps something for you to hack on?--Eloquence* 03:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll try my hand at it. Also, I'll probably tinker with the external editor some more, as it really needs checkboxes for allowing the user to check off whether or not the edit is minor, or if they want to watch the page. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 03:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Erik:
Would you take a look at the info_box on the Martin Luther page? I'd like to have the text wrap around the box, but am not sure how to do it... Thanks! Bob Smith--CTSWyneken 04:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm... It must be Firefox, then... I just looked at it in Explorer, and its fine. In Firefox, it looks like an old-fashioned HTML 2.0 image -- no wrapping...
--CTSWyneken 01:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Commons:Administrators RFA
Hi Erik,
Can you take a look at Commons:Commons:Administrators. The voting there appears to be almost inactive, and given that the window for nominations is 7 days, it could probably benefit from a little more attention. -- Solipsist 06:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
DPLs on Wikipedia
Hi Elo, people were looking for a way of tracking vandals who'd recieved different testn warnings. I reckon DPLs could be the answer for this. Do you know if the extension could be enabled on WP? Dan100 (Talk) 11:55, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Wikimedia portal
Hi Eloquence. I hear you're able to edit wikimediafoundation.org. I suggest the Wikisource logo link there should be updated. The page currently uses Commons:Image:Wikisource.jpg, which is redundant. I suggest the page should use either Commons:Image:Wikisource-logo.jpg (link) or the actual URL used by Wikisource, wiki-sources.png. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 13:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Setting up ee.pl?
I'm following your instructions for setting up ee.pl, and I can't get past installing the prerequisite package 'Encode'. I know that ppm needs a .ppd file of that same name, but a Google search only turned up information on 'PPD proteins', and a similar request for help on Russian Wikipedia. Do you know where can I find the package? Phoenix-forgotten 22:17, 2005 July 28 (UTC)
styles
Hi Erik,
Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles on royal and papal articles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like your views. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Royal styles of Eloquence | |
---|---|
Papal styles of Pope Paul VI | |
---|---|
Monarchical styles of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary | |
---|---|
Styles of James V of Scotland |
---|
Presidential styles of Eloquence | |
---|---|
File:Ie pres.gif |
Styles of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall |
---|
hey
- Is your book to be translated into English? Apwoolrich 07:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. However, a book that coves similar topics competently is We the Media by Dan Gillmor (ISBN 0596007337).--Eloquence* 10:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Got it - a very good read indeed. Apwoolrich 10:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Infoboxes
Hey Erik,
Thanks for the comment. I'm amazed how, after such a bloody battle before, as Yeats said, "peace comes dropping slow". They seem to have worked a treat. I know there is still the issue of placement. It can be difficult to find the right spot that doesn't interfere with anything else. I put them in to begin with. We can play around with location I suppose. I've put them in a lot of pope articles, British royalty articles, German monarchy articles etc and so far no problem. It proved to be such a simple solution to a problem I at one stage thought insoluble. And for my next trick . . . I will solve world hunger (with an infobox)!!! Slán. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
commons dual liscencing
Thanks for the message. The reason I have been doing this is because I was unaware that using one cc-by-sa liscence automatically dual liscenced it with the international versions. I presume that I just didn't read the relevant page closely enough.
One of the things I might get around to doing is reliscening all my cc-by-sa images to any cc-by-sa liscence (i.e. including 1.0 2.0 2.5 all the international versions and the more restrictive ones as well). I have not spotted a template for this on commons, amd so I will at some point get around to creating one if nobody else does before me. If such a template does exist, either let me know about it here or on my talk page or just add it to any one of the cc-by-sa images I've uploaded to the commons (cite this edit as justification) where I will spot it and propogate it to the other images. Thryduulf 16:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Deletion
Hello Erik. I note that your name is on the list for housekeeping, and deletion in particular. Could you please review the situation of Sprucefield? A deletion notice was added nearly two months ago. Since then I have expanded it considerably and believe it is a notable subject. Of course I can't remove the notice without any consultation but it does seem to have gotten lost in the VFD process. Many thanks, Mark83 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking the time to sort this out. Mark83 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Kuro5hin article
I really liked your Kuro5hin article, it gave a lot of insight as to how the -NC is not needed via value added arguements. Bye, --ShaunMacPherson 01:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikijunior name vote
Please go to m:Wikijunior project name and vote for a name in the Wikimedia children's project. -- user:zanimum
Luther Page Rewrite Discussion on
See the Luther page talk. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
FlickrLickr
Sorry I haven't finished my slice yet; I went back to school and it's kept me busy :-) I'll try to finish this batch in the next couple of days. --bdesham 03:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Revision on Esquire article
Erik, I like what you did with lots of the edits on the article, so I'll add some of my thoughts to it. In the meantime, I'm going to remove the 0.3 version from the list because the idea is that it would only be snapshotted when other folks have had the time and a chance to "audit" and review a version. That is, best not to have version too quickly or only a single author. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 07:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Eric Conspiracy
Are you part of The Eric Conspiracy? Alphax τεχ 06:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd rather not be part of anything that involves Eric Raymond.--Eloquence* 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Opus Dei
It's unusual to see so many comparatively "low edit" users voting on FA - don't you think? Giano | talk 11:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's fairly obvious that OD is "looking after" the article. The Mormons are doing the same with "their" articles. It surprises me that Scientology hasn't done it yet. I have given up most hope for neutrality on religion articles in Wikipedia, but I'm not going to let obviously biased work slip through the only approval process that we have.--Eloquence* 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)