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 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)

Erik:

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I really want the Luther article to improve, since I'm sure that someday, some student, perhaps even one of mine, will quote it in a paper. Since I make a big point of evaluating pages, this one would have been rejected outright, since it showed no sign of scholarship. We're now finally at a place where that's no longer as true.

On the copyright issues, I believe that it is important to respect the law, even if we do not agree with it. The American Edition of Luther's Works is a sore spot for me, since I've been trying for years to convince the publishers to ease up and allow some texts out. Posting docs like On the Jews... destroys much of what I've done to convince them its safe. It doesn't help my conversations with my congressman and senator either. So for the sake of one item, hundreds may be held up by the publisher. Since I consider providing such works my life's work, I do not take it lightly.

Just so you know where I'm coming from. CTSWyneken 13:49 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Hey, Erik, since I'm a newbie here... Is there a way to easily do footnotes (stubs, maybe) in articles, so that I can cite without unduly interrupting the flow of the prose? I'd also like to get some technical stuff that's interesting, but diversionary (Did Luther nail or mail the theses?) off the main page, but there for the curious. Bob Smith CTSWyneken 16:05 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sadly, this is one area where Wikipedia is still lacking standardization. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. My preferred style is [Author Year, Page] with a bibliography at the bottom; or [1], [2], [3] ... the latter is harder to update, of course. Moving away parts of the article is not a problem, just create a new page like Martin Luther's 95 Theses[?] and link it from the main article. The tricky part is finding a good title. --Eloquence 16:43 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

FYI, most English-language journals and monographs in the fields of History and Philosophy (and a few others) still use a version of what in the US is Chicago Manual of Style -- dunno what the English version is. It uses full bibliographic reference for the first instance and you can find it at the University of Arkansas History Dept. Website. Maybe we should use the most common citation form for the discipline?

Of course, since there really isn't supposed to be actual original research in the wikipedia, there should only be a very few citations anyway. Boots 18:45 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Boots, I think we should also keep editability and readability in mind. A citation style that is too complex will likely end up being violated. I prefer one that is unobtrusive. However, I strongly disagree with your last remark. With "original research", we do not mean research in literature, that is, relying on existing sources. We mean conducting your own experiments or developing theories and publishing them on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal or book publisher; we rely on what other authorities have said. But citing these authorities directly is perfectly in line with our policy, and strongly recommended by many of us. --Eloquence 21:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Dear Eloquence

If you read my comments on JTD's page properly, you will note the following:

• I did not "accuse" Boots or say that Boots was DW or any other banned user. I said that he/she looked to me like a banned user, and my evidence for this is quite straightforward: Boots keeps emphasizing his/her knowledge and understanding of the wikipedia conventions, yet did not register a user name until a week ago. I suggested DW merely as a possibility, because Boots seemed to be homing in on JTD as the object of his/her antagonism. JTD then assured me that this was not the case, and I make no further comment. Boots has also been to my page (ahead of you) to refute the suggestion.

• I recognised that there is a problem in the naming of Portuguese monarchs, just as Boots contends there is, and I chose to discuss with JTD the best way of getting around it. I don't choose to withdraw my description of Boots as "attention-seeking", which was prompted by the way he/she appears to be trying to escalate the argument.

I'm as ready as the next person to admit when I am wrong, but if Boots isn't asking me for an apology, I don't see any reason why you should. Deb 19:32 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Deb, I know what you said, I read it and chose my words accordingly. Please re-read my original comment. I have no opinion on Boots as a user. I have an opinion on the paranoia that surrounds banned users, and how this paranoia can be instrumentalized to create a cabal on Wikipedia that isolates users independently from community decisions. You write that you are "as ready as the next person" to admit when you are wrong, which I believe you immediately, since most people won't admit when they are wrong most of the time ;-). However, that was only a suggestion. I kindly ask you to do at least this: When you have suspicions, collect evidence first, and publish it when you have enough. Do not contribute to the paranoia. We may have all fallen victim to it at one point or another -- that's alright, it highlights the problems with permanently banning users. Now that we are aware of it, we should be careful to avoid it. --Eloquence 21:51 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Dear Erik:

Thanks for the thoughts. I've fallen into a hybrid style, much like you've suggested. The parenthetical notation style is gaining acceptance, even in classic humanities disiplines, although I really don't like it, especially for notations rather than citations. It really makes an article hard to read. If I could do footnotes, I'd be all Chicago Manual. So I think I'll stay with my current style. Down the road, I just might take some of the tangents to their own articles, but there's much to do with the main article between us all before I'd be ready for it. CTSWyneken 21:36 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

The link update code most certainly is dreadful at present; I'm already overcommitted on several fronts, though, so I'm not going to commit to fixing it just now... --Brion 01:14 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Say, thanks for the encouraging words at < http://wikipedia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dino >. You probably are not into the American Civil War (but us American's are often heavy into it -- The Union split, slavery, brother shooting brother, ...), but I just wrote a truly large writeup at < http://wikipedia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Vicksburg > of something that happened 160 years ago today (July 4, 1863). If you have suggestions -- no obligation. I was *very* careful about copyrighted material, changing all to my own words and making a big show when I quoted some historian under fair use.

---

Good evening Erik

Thank you very much for your detailed answer. Yes, I understand. I also use CVS at work, so am aware of the pbs arising from careless and newbies people on this type of software. I suggested several times to some french developers that they could get involved in the soft work, but...I can only trust you and Tarquin on the principles. I can't say what you are worth in terms of technical abilities of course :-).

This said, I have a small worry. A couple of days ago, I went to the test wikipedia. Look at the toc. Noticed I could edit them, but then each individual window was blank (did not seem to contain what I saw on the page). When I put text in it and save, I saw no difference. Is it normal ?

Today, I went back to check the evolution. And the only thing I can access is the main page and pages. As soon as I click on something else (preferences, recent changes, specials, edit), the page is blank (or yellow). Nothing in. I see nothing at all. Hence I wonder. Either the test wiki is dead. Either there is an bad error. Either if this system is implemented, my time here is over. Anyone reported any problem ??? User:anthere

Under IE, I see a javascript error, saying document.editform.wptextbox1 is not an object.

Hm, not sure what you mean with "edit them". There are two different features, the TOC and the section editing. Which one are you referring to?

the edition pb is on the section editing feature. I click on the edit link on the right. The windows which open is blank. And my edit is not saved. Perhaps is it normal. I just wanted to check

It is definitely not normal, but I cannot reproduce it. Can you describe on which page you are getting this problem? I have tested in Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror, and IE. --Eloquence 20:09 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As for the TOC feature, please do you think this display is normal ? (part at the right place, part on the left) anthere

No, this is also not normal! Also never seen this. Do you also see this for the other table on Auto-TOC (http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-TOC) after I removed the headings and TOC? If so, it may be a problem with Opera 5. --Eloquence 20:09 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the test.wiki error.

--Eloquence 19:28 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Brion told me there was currently a error...

I'll look again on each of the 4 browsers tomorrow. Currently faaaaaliiiinnnnn asleep... User:anthere

Hi Erik,

There seems to be some vote (not another one!!!) on the issue of the redesigned front page set up by those opposed to it. Given your role in it (and I love it BTW) it might be worth casting your vote there, lest the boring old sods who prefer the old page get their way and return to the dull old look. This infernal vote is at Talk:Main Page/Layout design. What was that you wrote about "cranks"? "-) lol FearÉIREANN 02:02 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Question about your edit section code...

 $es=$wgUser->getID() && $wgUser->getOption( "editsection" );

Why? It seems confusing to me to have the default user preference different to the non-logged-in preference, and I don't think anything like that is done anywhere else in the code. -- Tim Starling 16:03 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Section editing is very useful to regular users of the site, so it should be a default preference. However, non-editors who just want to read articles will find it confusing and/or annoying. The same principle may be applicable to other user preferences as well, e.g. double-click editing. It may be useful to have a third state defined in Language.php for such preferences. --Eloquence 16:07 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought you might say something like that. I'm not convinced. I'll have to think about it. -- Tim Starling 16:16 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Yup, gotcha! Poor Yorick 04:27 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I saw your message on Brion's talk page about a better method for updating the link tables. I'm going to have a go at it myself. You haven't already found someone else to do it, have you? -- Tim Starling 04:31 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You may want to check with Thomas Corell (T.Corell at T-online dot de), he made some vague suggestions. But other than that, have a go at it! --Eloquence 04:33 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

As you may have noted. I undeleted the 100 worst britons thingummy. (still too druink to speell properly). Sorrry allaruoud. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 23:34 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Speaking of deletions, I saw someone accidentally delete a page with a history the other day. I've just had a stroke of genius. When a sysop deletes a page, instead of being given the message "The page has been deleted" etc, they should automatically be taken to the relevant undelete page. That will give them a shock if a history exists, and hopefully they'll check the previous versions.

For example, I just deleted Xi Balba[?] - when I did so, I should have been taken to the undelete page for it (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Undelete&target=Xi%20Balba).

Evercat 23:57 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Dunno how useful that would be. You already get a big bold warning message if you want to delete a page with a history, and you have to confirm the deletion, and the undeletion utility is readily available .. In most cases, undeletions are performed by a different person than the one who deleted the page. --Eloquence 00:01 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

But you might miss the warning - people have an uncanny ability to screen out stuff that's not relevant to what they're doing. The case I mention is still in the deletion log:

• 22:10 5 Jul 2003 Jtdirl deleted "Colossal Cave Adventure" (content was: 'No Kurofucks allowed.')

Now, admittedly, he tells me he realised as soon as he'd done it that he hadn't checked the history, but I do wonder if any pages have ever been lost in this way...

My suggestion is just a way to show the sysop precisely what he or she has done. Evercat 00:07 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi Erik re-the above. I was in the process of checking through the edit history, got distracted (I had to go and check a chicken stew in the oven!), came back and forgetting for a moment I hadn't actually checked the page history, hit delete. I realised as it was deleting that in the moment of distraction I hadn't actually gotten around to checking the page history. I had to go back to the kitchen for a minute or two, then came back to undelete to double check the page history only to find that Evercat had beaten me to it and already undeleted it. It was just a case of a momentary distraction that broke my concentration - blame it on trying to cook while dealing with the latest Michael apparition who was scurrying around creating articles all over the place and doctoring old ones. Heck, even I can make a mistake sometimes! FearÉIREANN 01:41 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)