Misplaced Pages

User talk:Eloquence

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eloquence (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 1 February 2007 (→3RR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:48, 1 February 2007 by Eloquence (talk | contribs) (→3RR)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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:


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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, for whatever purpose. This is extremely far from the original idea about using fair use images on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Thumbs up!

File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg
Because you nominated an article for deletion that was based on your own site (found here), I, Ian Manka (as the administrator closing the debate), award you this Thumbs Up, suitable for framing. 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


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

Featured pictures

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

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)


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)

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)

Brad Patrick

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

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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other 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)

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*

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 Misplaced Pages's internationalism and the English Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

photographs

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

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)

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 (háblame) 04:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wikinews

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

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)

Possibly unfree Image:8btheater.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:8btheater.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Abdel Frasheri on de:

Hi Erik! I see that you have an account on the German Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages as unverifiable (Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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| 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:

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:

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:

Cheerio for now, keep in touch :-).

Kim

Future

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

Congrats!

File:Bulle champagne.jpg
Mazel Tov! SlimVirgin 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 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)

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)

PaulWicks

Please take action regarding PaulWicks :

http://en.wikipedia.org/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/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/search/?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 ==

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Project MKULTRA. Andrew Levine 00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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!

Genesis

Your edit summary "-deleted images" 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Image:Fayum04.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fayum04.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

Freedom Wiki Template

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

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:Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Version 0.5/To do, User talk:Walkerma, Misplaced Pages talk:Version 0.5, m:Misplaced Pages on CD/DVD, m:Static version tools, m:Talk:Special projects subcommittees/Static content Wizzy…☎ 15:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Guybrush in LOEG

I reverted your deletion on Guybrush's appearance in LOEG. WP:NOR is about research that appears first in Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Great Contributions

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

Wikiproject:LEAD

I have proposed 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)

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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

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)

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)

Announcement

Announcement
The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!

To keep this slightly Misplaced Pages related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today!

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages 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)

Second Life

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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:

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

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 Misplaced Pages'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:

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other 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 Misplaced Pages: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 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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)

3RR

Warning
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Psychic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)