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 contents are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments use the "Older versions" 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)
WM Logo (Neolux)
Hi Erik,
Got your message, but have been away for a bit so I'm sorry about the delay.
Is there a discussion of any kind about the MW and WM logo choices and what modifications have been requested? There was nothing on the image talk page.
Cheers,
Neolux 22:35, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- I don't think any modifications have been requested, and this will probably be decided top-down. I intend to use 3rd place for the software (the square brackets have a nice technical touch) and 2nd place for Wikimedia, Mav has also supported using your logo for Wikimedia. All we need is a transparent version ..—Eloquence 22:39, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)
- Uploaded some stuff to my user page on Meta. Let me know your thoughts. Neolux 23:03, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Logo size
Hi, Please see my comments on logo size in meta- Final logo variants/Nohat. KRS 09:56, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Not worth clarifying? KRS 18:30, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Logo History
Thank you for your work on the m:Logo history page. I started it because I thought there needed to be a NPOV page on the logo and you have certainly helped it become that way. I have tried to clarify the reason for the controversy over the Nohat logo and you have been helpful in providing another prespective (as a heads up, I just rearrange some stuff on the page again, hopefully without too much bias). Thank you also for putting in the older logo history. Jrincayc 14:06, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- You're welcome, although I think most users are very happy with the new logo and would just like to close this issue now. I have shown it to a designer friend of mine a couple of days ago and he was quite impressed. He would probably have gotten a heart attack if I had showed him the original Paullusmagnus logo (no offense to PM). The "Kallo" alone disqualified it as a final logo.
- I actually agree with you that the final optimization process was not democratic -- it was not supposed to be. There are some structural differences between democratic and consensus processes -- in a consensus process, you often don't try to get maximum reach, but instead work with those who are interested in the process, make the change and then wait for the reaction. There are some objections, but the people who have objected have made no suggestions that would have allowed us to continue refining the logo within the consensus framework, instead simply calling for reverting it, either because of process concerns or a general gut feeling. These were basically 3 or 4 people and the poll indicates no shift in balance of opinion over prolonged exposure, so I do not consider it particularly unfair to let the present logo remain in place.—Eloquence 23:45, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)
Mother Teresa
Please see my comments at Talk:Mother Teresa. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:36, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Eric,
Some people may idolise MT but I don't. If you think that I am some fan of hers then you really don't know me at all. If you hadn't put critical comments on the page I sure as hell was going to. In fact that was the original reason I went to the page in the first place. But I at least am able to leave aside personal opinions and try to be objective and balanced, listing pros and cons. I did it on one article on wikipedia about a particular international politician I know whom personally I detest and hate with a vengence. But I still could put my personal detestation to one side and write an NPOV article about him, to the surprise of another Irish contributor who knows my real identity and my personal views on the man and who emailed me to ask how could I be so neutral and fair to the son of a bitch. The answer was 'through gritted teeth'. I had major fights with RK one week and worked with him the next; ditto with Stevertigo, etc. And I get on great with Lir, having had a bad relationship with him months ago. So yes I do my damnest to be impartial and bitterly resent your constant and continuous accusations of bias, much less a 'pro-catholic bias' when in a newspaper column I write I am regularly accused of an anti-catholic bias. I was particularly incensed at your accusations when writing about clerical abuse of children, given that two members of my family were abused by the same RC priest. It was a struggle to be neutral and not to write a 'fuck the Church' article. FearÉIREANN 00:32, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- You of all people should know that there is a large spectrum from "fervent supporter of the Pope" to "enemy of everything Catholic". I have never said that you fall onto any of the extreme ends of that spectrum. But being raised Irish-Catholic and having a background in history, which tends to be rather apologetic these days, I do believe that you have a certain bias of the type "Yeah, some things the Church does are pretty bad, but we must not listen to the extremists on either side". There are women who have been locked up in Magdalen Asylums in Ireland for decades, who have been physically and mentally abused and are very angry at their abusers, but who yet worship and highly respect the institution of the Church. This has a lot to do with early childhood experiences. If you take for example the Vatican Bank connections to the mafia and to drug trade, I would be positively suprised if you would even be willing to give serious consideration to these claims. Your easy dismissal of Hitchens (whom I certainly don't like much, but I care more about what a person says than how he says it) falls into a similar category for me. And don't even get me started about your "animals in the confessional" theory again.
- Am I the paragon of truth and neutrality? Of course not. There may be things which I do not see, do not want to see or cannot see. I may be ignoring some good things which the Church does because I feel that its negative influence far outweighs these things. For example, I believe that the Church position on contraception leads to unnecessary death and suffering of millions, and it would be hard to compensate for this with a little charity here and there. When someone then argues that this is a minor issue, well known, that nobody does what the Church says anyway etc. (all provably false), I think that this is a case of clear pro-Catholic bias. But when I write about the Church, I may forget to even mention its charitable activities. That is of course not acceptable either, and I am happy when others fill in the missing pieces. The MT case is similar. I should note that I don't consider any organized religion positive, although I consider some of them more harmful than others. So if you want to call me something, you can call me "anti-religious".
- Whether you and I have an opinion (bias) is really beside the point, though. Everyone does. The question is: Do we follow the policy or not? Do we try to push other people's opinions aside in an effort to promote our own? I don't remember a single edit on the MT article where I have done that. And I don't think you have a strong motivation to do this either. The differences we have over the MT article are, if you look at it from a distance, ridiculously small. Do we describe a 425-page-book as "more comprehensive" than a 100-page-pamphlet or not? Do we include a certain sentence in a long quotation or not? With a different attitude we could easily reach consensus on these matters and wouldn't have to waste our time on discussions like this one. It would be helpful if you would acknowledge that your "revert-and-let's-get-this-over-with" attitude is not a cooperative one and not likely to lead to a result where all participants are equally unhappy (which is really what compromise is about). That's the kind of commitment -- a commitment to seek consensus and discussion -- that I asked for the last time and I still haven't received it.—Eloquence 01:38, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
- On a separate note, on the mailing list you wrote "I have co-operated with many people on wikipedia. The only fights I have had here in ages have been with you". In the above comment you write: "I had major fights with RK one week and worked with him the next; ditto with Stevertigo, etc. And I get on great with Lir, having had a bad relationship with him months ago." Don't you see a small discrepancy between these claims?—Eloquence 01:46, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
- In you read the sentences, Eric, you would see that the first sentence includes the words in ages. The second one talks historically, not about recently. FearÉIREANN 21:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Something to take your mind off the MT thing - you may be not be aware that you have a talk page at Simple: Eloquence/Talk. I thought I should point it out as without a watchlist you may otherwise never have become aware of its existence. Angela 23:49, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
Hi Erik, sorry about not getting back to you. Thank you for the message. We've been experiencing severe thunder and lightning in Dublin for the last 24 hours so I have been logging on and off quickly. I had a reply half typed up when we had a short power failure so I thought it safer to stay off the computer. When I get a chance I'll right a detailed reply. :-) FearÉIREANN 23:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Have I put you in the right category on Wikipedia:Developers? -- Tim Starling 03:22, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
Medical Wikipedia
Hi. I'm a Wikipedian whose father is a doctor. When I explained to him what Wikipedia was, he replied that it sounded like exactly what the medical community needs - a centralized, living center for medical information. I was wondering about how a sister project to Wikipedia for physicians could be set up, and since I didn't know where to ask I figured a developer might by a good start. Thanks, leave a reply on the Talk Page of my namespace. --Alex S 01:47, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I unprotected User:Eloquence/Boilerplate texts - assuming accidental/old vandal/etc. If deliberate, please re-protect and drop a quick line of explanation on wikipedia:protected page and/or on the page itself. Thanks. Martin 18:01, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- This is a user subpage that has no relevance whatsoever to anyone except me. When I copy & paste from there, I want to be sure that these are my words without checking the history. As such, protection is entirely appropriate, and user subpages of that nature are hardly relevant enough to be listed on Wikipedia:Protected page.—Eloquence
Image:Micky.jpg source
What's the source of Image:Micky.jpg? The image caption doesn't say where the mural is. --Menchi 04:46, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It's from a news article about the discovery, see Mickey Mouse.—Eloquence 23:25, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Adolph is a modern alternative spelling to Adolf, since you are a German speaker you will have to learn that many foreign words are given English variants. I am not interested in doing your research for you, any attempt whatsoever, on your point, will enable you to discover that (like it or not) many English speakers use Adolph. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Many English speakers also write "walla" when they mean "voilà". You do not appear to understand the difference between legitimate alternative spelling and misspelling, and since you refuse to back up your position, I will assume that you are trolling as usual.—Eloquence 23:25, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)
Hello. It seems that you are an extremely valuable contributer to Wikipedia, but I have not made your acquaintence yet, so I will now say, "Nice to meet you!"
- Best wishes! ---Alexandros 15:11, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Did you ever see my suggestion that the TOC ignore spaces if they're the last character in the header? Evercat 17:32, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Could be. This is probably just one line of code. Why was that a problem again?—Eloquence 17:36, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)
Look in the TOC. If I do a header == like this == it gets an ugly space at the end of the TOC link.
- I see. This is only visible if underlining is enabled (yuck). I'll see to fixing it.—Eloquence
Can I remind you of this please? :-) Evercat 12:58, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Testing talk page notification
again ... / and again
You know, you are clearly wrong on Mother Theresa; because, I agree with you.Lirath Q. Pynnor
Please stop editing Mother Teresa. You are re-adding things that were removed after the community agreed were inappropriate. I will not revert any of your subsequent edits, but someone else will. Alexandros 19:28, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Nonsense. There was no such decision.—Eloquence 19:32, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes there was, Erik. Stop assing around and start working with people, not ignoring people and ramming your agenda in people's faces. FearÉIREANN 19:34, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Wrong, there wasn't. Put up or shut up, James.—Eloquence 20:12, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I would love to work on the Pompeii gallery article. That was one of the first articles I read that got me "hooked" to wikipedia. Alexandros