User talk:Eloquence

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)

Purging cache

I am not sure if your comment on meta about purging the main page had to do with the squid cache, but it did then the purging can now be done by visiting links like http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&action=purge . If it had to do with a parser cache or something (which I think are now temporarily disabled), then I guess it doesn't matter.

By the way, your talk page could use some archiving as it takes forever to download on dialup. Dori | Talk 01:06, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

There's also MediaWiki's internal caching indicator which tells the browser whether it should use a cached version or not, and this can only be refreshed by editing the page.--Eloquence*

Abstimmungen und die Auslegung mancher Admins derselbigen

[obsolete gelöscht]

Danke fürs Vermitteln, werde künftig auf solche obsolete Anfragen verzichten und einfach Handeln. MfG 213.23.152.193 23:26, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, war die letzten Tage etwas beschäftigt. Sag Bescheid, wenn ich noch irgendwie helfen kann.--Eloquence*

Monobook.css

There was no consensus to change the behavior of links with the switch to monobook. If you'd like to seek such consensus, please feel free to seek it. However, the vote first time around was 2:1 in favor of underlined/browser default. Perhaps working out how to get it to respect the browser default, which I presume is not underlined for you, is the way to go? That seems like the best solution for that and font issues. You should probably expect much discussion to move monobook in the direction of a consensus solution, then we may end up with pure monobook and wikipedia default monobook, as the consensus default choice. I don't use monobook myself. Jamesday 12:14, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bathhouse images

Hi, I checked the page on image guidelines before I posted the pictures you removed from gay bathhouse. Why aren't they usable? Exploding Boy 16:52, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Our goal is to build a free content encyclopedia. Every single fair use image leads us a little further away from that goal, and we should avoid them whenever possible, see Wikipedia:Fair use. This is a case where a Wikipedian could easily create a truly free replacement image, but having fair use images already in the article deters from this goal. Furthermore, there is no indication that any attempt has been made to obtain a permission for the images in question. I realize you are trying to help the article toward featured status, and that is a noble goal, but we should not take the easy way and grab a couple of images from a website without permission to reach --Eloquence*

While I see your point, it's rather hard to get photos of the inside of gay bathhouses because cameras and photo taking tend to be prohibited, so in fact it's not really true that it would be "easy" to create a replacement; all the readily available images are going to be "official" or promotional. Beyond that, I was under the impression, and my impression was created by reading the articles on use of images, that fair use images didn't require permission. Exploding Boy 17:52, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Fair use images don't require permission, but permission should be sought before we resort to fair use. While you make a good point regarding the prohibition of photos, it might be possible to convince an establishment to allow you to shoot photos during hours when there are no customers, under the condition that their name be given in the image description (free advertising).--Eloquence*

Again, what you say is true, but bathhouses are a special case. I venture it'd be pretty hard to convince them for several good reasons: first, they're worried about legal problems, second, you'd probably need the owner's (not just the manager's) permission, and they tend not to spend any time at the clubs, third, bathhouses are very rarely completely empty, and fourth, even if the owners were there they'd be suspicious of people wanting to take photos. I'll try sending an email to one of the sites. Exploding Boy 18:03, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, these are reasonable concerns. Please try to request permission and if that fails, put these thoughts on the image description page as a rationale for fair use.--Eloquence*

Good luck in the elections!

Just wanted to wish you good luck in the election, and let you know that I've voted for you. Like your ideas, and it's obvious you have put a lot of hard work into the project and will continue to do so in the future! --Vikingstad 00:49, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Vikingstad. I will pursue these goals regardless of whether I win or not, but being entrusted by the community to do so would certainly help.--Eloquence*

Bilderberg

Nice job getting the Bilderberg Group on the front page. :-) Evercat 18:31, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought the topic could use some exposure.--Eloquence*

Section editing bug

Hi Erik, gwicke told me that you did some coding on the section editing, and there is a (or maybe more) bug that mangles sections, perhaps only on conflicts. See m:MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports#edit conflict management problem and [1] (duplicated page) for example. I think I have heard mentions of the VFD page being duplicated several times as well. Thanks, Dori | Talk 15:33, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

This is probably related to E23's merging code, which I have nothing to do with. I'll look into it, but I suggest you contact him as well.--~~

Mediation bulletin board broken?

Hi Erik -- I've noticed that the mediation bulletin board seems to be down -- along with all of the others. Do you know if that was lost when the databases were being worked on over the last couple of weeks? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 20:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please talk to Brion about it, I'm currently a bit busy.--Eloquence*

No problem. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IMDB

I was talking in the IRC channel about harvesting data from IMDB with a bot - data is not, afterall, copyrightable. A few people suggested IMDB have policy against bots - but I cannot see how this would prevent us - if not direct bot-database interaction then bot-html? Angela mentioned you talking about a deal with IMDB about some trade of information - how would this work? What kind of data would they need from us? --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 11:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My discussions with IMDB were about IMDB getting links to Wikipedia articles, not the other way around. This can be done using their email submission interface (which you need to be specifically authorized to use). Regarding import, the best way to do that would be using the database, which is offered for download under a non-free license. But please don't create Wikipedia articles from raw data, at most existing Wikipedia articles should be complemented using IMDB data.--Eloquence*

Well, I'm sorry you lost. Not that I'm not fond of Ant too... It was close, though. Stevertigo 03:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

—

Hey, you changed all the "—"s into "--"s in my signature (WP:FAC)! ;-) Not to worry... I actually wanted to ask you about this note on your user page: "If you want me to contribute more to Wikipedia than I can do in my limited spare time, you can pay me to do so" — have you ever had anyone take you up on this? — Matt 15:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Secret Service F 9/11

There certainly is conclusive evidence that the Secret Service practice of protecting foreign embassies IS consistent and reflective of the law. The sources are already in the article, did you read them? There is no conslusive evidence if their showing up on that day indicates preferential treatment, but it is certainly consistent with the law. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 22:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Neither side has offered conclusive evidence as to whether all embassies are in practice protected by the Secret Service." - Have you seen the film? As discussed, Moore isn't implying that not all Embassies receive the same type of protection from the Secret Service (they don't, it is based on requests and indicated threat levels). Moore is implying that because the Secret Service is there AT ALL, that the Saudis are receiving special treatment (and in the surrounding context, that this is because of their ties to the Bush Administration). I can surely provide you with conclusive evidence that not all embassies are protected in the exact same way, but that isn't Moore's point, nor is it the point of the criticism. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 22:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Critics contend that Officer Kimbell's claim is wrong and should have been corrected by Moore." - Are you just not seeing my message here? Are you not reading the discussion on the discussion page? Have you exempted yourself from all discussion? Do I need to start reverting your edits to get your attention or what? Have you seen the movie or are you basing your assertions simply on the copy of the uncut, unedited transcript that you appear to be using? — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 00:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The transcription is based on the cam version which was filmed from a cinema and is circulating on the Internet (with Moore's consent). Moore is not implying any of the things you say he is. That is really the problem with Moore's critics - they read a whole fucking lot into the movie that just isn't there.--Eloquence*

Clearly you are a Moore apologist, and that is fine - but the question becomes, why are you editing what the critics are claiming? Do you need some evidence that there are indeed critics claiming what was written before you changed it? If so I will happily point you to a number of sources.

You think the average moviegoer knows that the Secret Service is in charge of protecting foreign embassies and foreign diplomats, and you think that Moore (in his voiceover, and tone of the scene) doesn't imply otherwise?

You don't think that Moore is implying that the Saudi's are receiving extra or abnormal protection from the Secret Service (albeit with the "perhaps" added to hedge his accusation against legal action)? — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 00:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moore does not imply any of the things you say he is implying. The tone of the scene is surprise. It's Moore's typical "What the fuck is going on here?" narration mode. In order to find out, he asks Kimbell - who responds that the SS is not usually in charge of guarding foreign embassies. You and the other Moore-bashers have failed to refute this claim. Moore then goes on to cite more specific data, but his tone remains speculatory. Alleging that he does so to defend against legal action is a typical Moorewatch style bullshit claim without any kind of support whatsoever. The logical explanation is that Moore does not know and hasn't done the extensive research necessary to determine whether the Saudi embassy is indeed the best protected one. Nor do you.--Eloquence*

Again, I ask if you have seen the film. Let's listen to his voiceover introduction of the Secret Service, courtsey of NPR (1:58 if you don't want to listen to the whole review). Turan is using this clip to make a point about Moore's comedy, but let's set that aside for a moment and listen to the voiceover. Now put it in the context of the film. You are correct, Moore does appear to be confused and takes on his typical "What the fuck is going on here?" narration mode. What is the viewer left with? First Moore appears surprised to find Secret Service no where near the White House. Moore asks the agent if they guard embassies, answer: no. He then goes on to point out that Bandar may be the best protected diplomat in the US. Overall implication? The SS does not guard embassies, only the white house. The Saudis are getting protection at their embassy, and Bandar himself is getting extra-ordinary protection.

What exactly do you disagree with? You don't think the viewer is left with the implication that the Secret Service doesn't guard embassies? You don't think that is a fair criticism? Are you maintaining that Moore himself didn't know when he released the film what the job of the Secret Service is? I am going to ignore your "moorewatch bullshit" comment as Moore's use of speculation-as-accusation in his films is a much broader discussion, that I will happily have in another context. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 01:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the film (with the exception of about 15 minutes in the middle which are missing from the rip circulating on the Internet, mostly related to the Patriot Act and civil liberties in post-9/11 America). Kimbell does not say "no", he says "no, not usually". I was not left with the overall impression that Moore wants to make any particular point about the Secret Service, I was left with the impression that he wanted to make a point about the Saudis possibly receiving special attention -- which may well be the case.

This is a straw man argument just like the one about the Taliban visit to Texas. First you make a claim about what Moore is allegedly implying and then you rebut that claim. Moore is not making nor implying any claim that the Secret Service does not guard foreign embassies. This, however, seems to be an easy to refute claim. It's quite a pathetic argument really. Now, if you could show with hard data that the Saudi embassy is not nearly the best-protected one in the US, that would be a lot more impressive.--Eloquence*

You are making the case for me! Of course Moore's overall point isn't to describe what the Secret Service does. His overall point is, as you say (and as the original criticism put forth), to show that the Saudis are receiving special attention. The question is how Moore illustrates his point! He does it by leaving the viewer with the following impressions which you have so far not disputed. 1) He makes it seem unusual that the Secret Service is not near the White House 2) He makes it seem unusual (I would argue that he makes it seem abnormal, even inappropriate) for the Secret Service to be protecting foreign embassies. 3) describes what is "possibly" extraordinary protection for Bandar. Now - Bandar aside, as I have no evidence one way or the other, the first 2 implications that he uses are.. at the very least misleading. You are right again when you say that it may well be the case the the Saudis are receiving abnormal protection. His overall point could very well be valid, but the case cannot be made by the 2 misleading implications. The third statement (perhaps I should call it supposition?) does not add to his case in a substantial way. If had had stated it as fact, it might. There is a very valid discussion to be had in regards to Saudi special treatment - this scene does not add to that discussion.

You need to get a handle on your emotions and argue the case without "bullshit" "pathetic" and other inflamatory remarks. — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 01:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Moore does not deliberately make any points in the segment -- he tells the tale of what happened in front of the embassy from his perspective as not knowing anything about secret service protection of embassies. That's a perfectly valid way to tell a story -- as the ignorant rather than the all-knowing storyteller. Officer Kimbell tells him that this level of protection is indeed unusual. He then reveals what he has actually found out -- that the embassy is protected by six secret service agents. Moore doesn't really care about the secret service per se. That's the straw man that you have set up, which you keep refuting. But that's not Moore's argument at all.-Eloquence*

Ok first let's be clear. The embassy protection is very different from Bandar's protection. They are in fact legally separate organizations (one is State, the other is USSS). In addition, the security detail might not be made up of govt employees (State can outsource it). None of that matters for our general disagreement, but it should be kept in mind for the sake of clarity and accuracy.

I think we are getting somewhere here: I will assume for the moment that Moore really isn't trying to make any point at all (though I disagree entirely - this gets back to our accusation-as-speculation difference of opinion). I think we are in agreement that regardless of his intentions, that the ignorant storyteller leaves the viewer of the documentary with an inaccurate and incomplete (...ignorant) sense of the Secret Service, and their function vis-a-vis embassy protection. Do we further agree that this inaccurate and incomplete sense of the situation could lead the viewer to believe that (given the surrounding context of the film) the Saudi's are receiving extraordinary protection from the USSS? </end_ridiculous_assumption>

I am fully aware the Moore doesn't care about the Secret Service per se, and have indicated this above. You keep bringing up a straw man. It seems to me that if you operate under the assumption that Moore is trying to point out Saudi special treatment in this scene (a logical and plausible assumption) you must look at the claims in the scene and see if they support his thesis. How does arguing that none of the factual claims are accurate or verifiable, thus his thesis cannot be supported by the claims, lead to a straw man situation?

His speculation that Bandar could "possibly" be the best protected diplomat in the country does nothing to support the thesis that the Saudi's are receiving special treatment because it is... speculation! All he tells us is that State has assigned him a 6 man security detail - where is the evidence to support the speculation that this makes him the best protected diplomat?

Are you seriously going to maintain that Moore it not attempting to make a point in this scene? That Moore isn't trying to impress upon the viewer any particular theory regarding the Saudis? He is just a bumbling idiot traveling around Washington D.C. with a camera and Craig Unger in tow? — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 06:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Moore's critics never seem to be able to agree on whether he is a bumbling idiot or not :-). Moore resolves the "ignorance" of the viewer in two ways: 1) by talking to Officer Kimbell, 2) by telling the viewers that "it turns out" that the embassy is very well-protected. Before Officer Kimbell's statement, the viewer is not left with any useful information. So Moore is surprised that an SS man would guard an embassy -- I guess most people would be surprised about that as well. But he doesn't claim any reasons for this. The part of the film you criticize is the setup, not the punchline.

The two claims the viewer is left with are: an armed officer states that the Saudi embassy receives "unusual" protection, and the Saudi embassy is "perhaps the best-protected" one in the US. These are both refutable claims, and none of them has been refuted (though I agree that the argument is not particularly well-supported in the first place). Are they misleading?

Will viewers come away with the impression that it is unusual for the SS to guard foreign embassies? Perhaps, because Officer Kimbell said so, and because of Moore's later claim. Is it actually unusual? This may well be the case - I still haven't seen any solid evidence from either side. Patrol is different from on-location guards and that the SS is legally tasked for a specific role doesn't mean that it actually exercises it anywhere. In fact, on the basis of the facts I've seen so far, it could well be that the embassy is the only one that receives this kind of on-site protection.

The fact that a law exists which tasks the SS with guarding foreign embassies is not surprising at all to any reasonably intelligent viewer -- after all, if such a law didn't exist, then the whole thing would be illegal. If you see an SS man standing in front of a building, then you can logically conclude that a law exists which justifies him standing there. That the law isn't specific to one building doesn't mean that its application isn't effectively limited to a handful of selected high value targets.

Moore doesn't even criticize the supposed preferential treatment -- he merely sees it as symptomatic for the influence that the Saudi dynasty -- by all accounts a group of brutal religious fundamentalists easily rivaling Saddam Hussein's regime in barbarism -- has on the United States. But he says that given that this influence exists, protecting the embassy is probably a good idea.

If it can be conclusively shown that Moore's speculation is unfounded, then either deliberate deception or true ignorance may be derived from that. But that hasn't been shown so far.--Eloquence*

First a request for clarification. It has been about a week since I have seen the film and I do not remember how the SS came into the scene. Since you have a digital copy maybe you can clear this up. As I recall Unger and Moore were looking around at the buildings in the area and there was an initial shot of the Saudi embassy and the other buildings. I do not recall seeing any SS presence in that initial shot (though I wasn't looking for it and I was taking notes). I do recall seeing 2 patrol cars during subsequent shots when the officer approaches Moore. If my recollection is accurate then it could indicate that it may well have the roving patrols that as Moore put it "showed up" either by chance or because they were called by the Saudi embassy in response to the guy video taping outside - the Secret Service takes note-taking near its responsibilities seriously, it would likely take video seriously as well [2].

The Department of State website that discusses the SS Uniformed Division and protection of missions indicates that fixed posts might actually be less desirable than roving patrols. "However because this posting is highly visible and offers little protection against a determined terrorist, it is not always recommended for every mission. Mobile patrol response is often more effective." [3] So I'm not sure that the distinction between roving patrols and fixed posts matters much at all.

It is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to conclusively refute either claim. The SS isn't going to publish their security patterns for us to examine. If pressed they might offer a general statement indicating that the level of security at the Saudi Embassy (and Bandar's detail, which is a State dept responsibility) are based solely on the threat level as the State link above indicates that they should be. They might be willing to release a general statement about Bandar's personal protection but if Bandar really IS the best-protected diplomat in the US (threat-based or not) and the SS verifies it.. then everyone knows that at any given time the US will only have a detail of 6 protecting an ambassador. Seems unlikely that that claim will ever be verified one way or the other.

You will get no argument from me on the nature of the Saudi regime nor on Moore's lack of outright criticism - it is not his style to directly criticize. The section as it stands now appears to be mostly accurate, if not concise.

I still maintain that the scene has a thesis, and that based on the information provided in the scene it remains unproven. The net effect being that the scene will mislead the average viewer - someone who doesn't go out and do all of the research and have the nuanced discussion that you and I are having will likely view the scene as conclusive. The difference seems to be that you think that there is nothing wrong with Moore speculating (I would say implying) that something is true in a way that might end up misleading the audience. I think Moore is highly intelligent and crafts and edits every scene with very specific goals in mind. I think he could easily have made this scene far less speculatory - and that he chose not to because it is easier to support the thesis of the scene with speculation than with fact. I suppose the article offers up enough information to let the viewer make a somewhat more informed decision than Moore allows.

I would be interested in discussing the film on a broader level and Moore's tactics in general. Having the accusation-as-speculation discussion (have you looked at the Unocal section?) and getting your opinion on Moore's level of intellectual honesty etc. We obviously have very different perspectives on his work, its purpose, and its effect. Interested? — Michael Alaly | Talk[[]] 09:36, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the film, you are correct that there are two patrol cars pulling up to the embassies, and the officer who talks to Moore comes from one of them. Maybe that information should be included in the article.

Speculation is perfectly legitimate -- it would be problematic only if Moore intentionally deceived the viewer, for which so far there is no evidence whatsoever. That doesn't mean that a good documentary can be built on speculation, and I wasn't particularly fond of the passage in question because of its dearth of hard facts. This is my main criticism with Fahrenheit 9/11 -- too many things are left unresolved.

From the opening sequence about the members of Congress objecting to Bush's inauguration to the Saudi connection to the Iraq war -- we get lots of bits and pieces with some comedy thrown in, but few conclusions. The film mainly sets up a certain mood.

That does not mean, however, that it is deceptive, and that is what I find so annoying about the criticism of Moore. The critics are hell-bent, to an obnoxious degree, to show "deceptions" or "lies". They even stoop so low to accuse Moore of "being supported by terrorists" (one of the most disgusting ways to discredit an opponent - accuse them of receiving "help" they cannot defend against). Heck, there's a movie in the works called "Michael Moore Hates America". This is the typical standard right-wing smear campaign and anyone who buys into this kind of crap is a lot more gullible than any fan of Michael Moore.

Of course FH 9/11 is propaganda. Its purpose is not to convey information but emotions. Unless you reject propaganda on principle, the question then becomes whether whether these emotions are justifiable on the basis of the facts, which they are.

I think given the sorry state of US education and media, propaganda is a necessary evil to get people to do something besides watching the Superbowl or playing video games. Personally I prefer to look for ways to improve the state of world-wide education and to help people build an informed worldview -- hence my participation in this and other projects. But Moore does an important service in helping to get people to oppose a very dangerous political and military elite. I do not have an "the end justifies the means" attitude -- once you sacrifice truth for your goals, you become as bad as the enemy. But Moore doesn't do that. There is only a couple of instances where I think he went too far. The Condi Rice quote is one such example (as far as I know, Miss Chevron was actually the most careful among the Bush adminstration about voicing a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda). None of them are egregious.--Eloquence*

Wikitex

You wrote in m:Talk:MediaWiki roadmap:

Update: Some Wikitex stuff now checked in. If it works it 
has a pretty good chance of making it into 1.4.--Eloquence 23:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

What stuff was this? --Phil | Talk 16:46, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't really had time to check it, but it doesn't seem to interface with the rest of the code yet. You should ask Peter Danenberg for details (danenberg at mitdasein dot com).--Eloquence*

I'm working on a patch as we speak. Danenberg 11:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons

Hello, you formulated the Wikimedia Commons project a while ago. You suggested you could code , along with User:Guaka and User:Imran. It seems, to me, to be the time to get this project off the ground and formulate a final roadplan - and start the coding for this project. Are you still interested? --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 19:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, however, I am currently busy finshing my first book. Give me another few days please.--Eloquence*

Sandbox changes

Please see my comments on Template talk:Sandbox. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I'm a little frustrated when I spent hours trying to put together the best version, a week waiting for comments after a post on the talk page and on the pump, trying to follow the protected page guidelines, and it's completely changed the same day.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 04:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NEH grant

I did some last minute fiddling, but it needs your expert hand. Can you please take a look. meta:NEH Narrative updated. Danny 02:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deutsche Wikibooks / German Wikibooks

Hallo Erik,

bin mir nicht sicher ob du mir weiterhelfen kannst. Aber wenn du nicht der richtige Ansprechpartner dafür bist, kannst du mir vielleicht einen nennen. Folgendes: Momentan interessiere ich mich neben der Wikipedia auch für Wikibooks. Das Problem dabei ist, dass mehr als 20 Sprachen die Domain http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks_portal benutzen. Um das Projekt weiterzuführen ist aber über kurz oder lang eine eigene deutsche Domain nötig, um Namenskonflikte mit andern Sprachen zu vermeiden. Wenn ich mich nicht irre, gibt es für das Projekt momentan außerdem noch keine deutschsprachige Mailingliste. Diese währe unbedingt notwendig, um da Projekt zu koordinieren und voranzubringen. -- Daniel B 16:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wenn ich Dich richtig verstehe, meinst Du die Wikipedia-artige Einrichtung von Subdomains wie de.wikibooks.org, fr.wikibooks.org usw. Das ist derzeit mit einem recht großen Aufwand verbunden, da jedes solche Wiki eine eigene Datenbank und eine eigene Konfiguration benötigt. User:Tim Starling hat für die Wiktionaries ein Skript geschrieben, um die Einrichtung zu automatisieren. Vielleicht kannst Du ihn überzeugen, das gleiche auch für Wikibooks zu machen?--Eloquence*

Danke für deine Hilfe. Ich werde in den nächsten Tagen mal mit Tim Starling reden und hoffe, dass ich ihn überzeugen kann. -- Daniel B 08:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An Idea

Hi!

I've been approaching a grad school to install a wiki system for reasons that are too obvious to go into. I think it's a great idea, but I'm sure that the powers-that-be will want to know about cost / upkeep / training / hardware etc.

My understanding is that this is the case: cost=free, upkeep=variable, but can be done by volunteers, training=variable as installation is one thing that is time consuming and has a level of difficulty to it, while the user level is pretty self explanitory, and hardware is all depending on how much they want to throw at it.

I have this vision where the school submits papers and keeps in contact via the wiki, using the wiki model as a radical replacement for BBS, email systems, and as a way for people to have active interesting discussions without actually having to meet. Also, submitting papers for peer review would be immediate and instant, and could be modded by peers.

feel free to reply at my comment page.Thanks!

Hwarwick 03:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is the question? FWIW, I offer MediaWiki wiki hosting at 15 euros a month (includes 5 gigabytes of transfer and 1 gigabyte of storage). Memory Alpha and Symbolwiki are two of my customers. I can set up a one month free demo for you if you want and after the month is over you can decide if you want to keep it.--Eloquence*

That's good info! Thanks! This is going to be a big project (due to bureaucracy) so I'll be back with you when I can shake some results out of these people. Again, Thanks!

Hwarwick 05:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Empty files in upload directory

Hallo Eloquence, ich habe vor einigen Tagen die upload-Verzeichnisse der deutschen Wikipedia angesehen, und eine Menge leere Dateien gefunden. Die Hälfte von ihnen hat weder eine Bildbeschreibungsseite noch Angaben über den Hochlader (also vermutlich keinen Eintrag in der Bildertabelle). Der de-Admin DaB. sagte mir, dass normale Admins da nichts tun können, und ich einen Entwickler ansprechen muss. Ich habe gwicke angeschrieben (am 18.07.), der hat aber noch nicht geantwortet (keine Ahnung wo er ist, sein letzter Beitrag ist vom 4. Juli).

Kannst du mir weiterhelfen, mir sagen, was mit den Bildern, die ich auf de:Benutzer:SirJective/Bildprobleme gelistet habe, geschehen sollte?

Gruss, --SirJective 19:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions about German Wikipedia

I'm sorry to bother you with these meaningless inquiries, but I'm a bit curious.

1. Why does the Wikipedia logo flash or blink on mouseover?
2. Is an asterisk used to signify date of birth? Is there anything more to this?
3. Are titles of songs properly styled in italics instead of in quotes (as in English)?

I'd appreciate any response.

Thanks,

Acegikmo1 20:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

TFA

Eric - the vote on the whole policy was made at Template_talk:Feature#A_simple_proposal, following Anthony's antics on the template. Someone objected to the original title (featured article dictator) so it was changed to director (which about 5 people agreed upon). The whole thing is in the middle of a two week trial right now. →Raul654 09:34, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Raul, I do not object to the system, I object to institutionalizing it in this way. By describing the policy at Wikipedia:Featured article policy and calling you the current coordinator, we are much more flexible in case we want to try anything new, and the title is less intimidating for people who want to make or suggest changes. Given that this option hasn't been discussed, I'd like to hear arguments why it shouldn't be used other than "we agreed on this".--Eloquence*

PV Comics and Wikipedia

Hello Erik,

I just stumbled upon the Webcomics Wikipedia entry and wondered how the comics from PV Comics might be included:

http://www.pvcomics.com

We offer both free and subscription based webcomics (much like Modern Tales): http://www.pvcomics.com/comics

Would the individual titles get their own entries? Would PV Comics be included alongside other umbrella sites like Modern Tales?

A couple other comic sites you might want to include: http://www.01comics.com and http://www.wirepop.com

Cheers,

Stuart Robertson stuart@pvcomics.com

Moving a page produced... junk.

Hi, I tryed to move the page Computer game to Computer and video game distinction and it gave me a database error about it timing out. It did the move, but the discussion page didn't move with it. I tried to move the page back and it gave me an error with a mass of numbers. It looks like everything is back to how it started, except now there is a redirect page at Computer and video game distinction. Would you please move Computer game to Computer and video game distinction for me or tell me what to do. Ajbperc 02:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)