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)
Except for this one regarding PETA:
- [1] wrote in The The Physiologist that PETA used a "cleverly edited" video and so "grossly distorted" the truth. There are several claims of dishonesty in the article.
- Don't know how to integrate it, though. Maybe you can find a way. Arthur 22:22 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
- I see you have integrated it. Still need to read the article, will try to write a proper summary. --Eloquence 10:19 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC)
Re VFD-DD3 - Eloquently said! -豎眩 Kanji = 雅談 - (graceful+talk) -豎眩
El - Daniel Alston AKA fonzy WAS the one that got wiktionary up and running. He suggestted the idea then someone said it had alreayd been suggested. Talk begain on it again and fonzy said look enough talk ltes use wiktionary.wikipedia.org as a tempoary address and LETS get this thing up and runinng and it did. - jacklat
- If someone tells me "write that article you've been meaning to write", and I do it, did he "get the article written"? Fonzy contributed to the creation of Wiktionary, which is great, but he should either be mentioned together with all the others, esp. Brion, or not at all. --Eloquence 21:19 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
I am getting a little tired of 172's work on Mugabe. Removing statements that do not meet his POV requirements and now plagiarizing materials from another source are hardly in the spirit of Wikipedia. I originally enetered the fray because of his insistence on removing materials that he did not like. I am not looking forward to going back and forth all day on this, when I could be contributing in more useful ways. Danny
- I agree. I'll give it one more go and if he doesn't start behaving reasonably I'll drop Jimbo a mail. --Eloquence 17:37 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
I’m not using my computer so I couldn’t access any of the pieces that I had written on Mugabe earlier for more formal work. Notice that my IP address right now does not begin with “172.” I chose the user name “172” to match the first three letters of the IP address of my home computer.
The wording in the article is changed enough to be legit, though. I’ll submit my own work on Mugabe at some point when I’m home. In the mean time this suffices, although I like my own work better.
It’s probably obvious from the work that I’ve always submitted that de-colonization and the Age of Imperialism are in my areas of expertise historically. Regardless, I didn’t feel like writing a long explanation on a talk page since I’m already reading and evaluating many documents as it is and I’m quite busy.
-172
Thanks for reverting the stuff on Donald Rumsfeld, I was just about to do it myself. ;-) --snoyes 20:42 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
Re: Tuffi.
Putting an elephant on a monorail seems like a really really really bad idea. Did no one think twice about it? (before the fall, that is!) -- Someone else 03:03 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, it was intended as a publicity stunt, and it worked, even if the falling was unintended. The city is now famous for its monorail and the elephant (there's also a brand of milk named after her). In any case, it is unlikely that this will happen again :-) --Eloquence 03:16 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
The photos were removed by Zoe with the comments "(deleting the photo montage)" and "(re-deleting the shrine)". She earlier gave her reasons at talk:Images of Rachel Corrie, which I have summarised (badly). Essentially, Zoe believes that having an "excessive" quantity of images is "POV propaganda" and creates a "shrine" that is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I have removed image:rachelcorrie01.jpg and listed it on wikipedia:votes for deletion because I believe that it is a possible copyright infringement. I've not been able to find any contact details for the photographer (Denny Sternstein), and Zoe, Danny, and Jtdirl all strongly oppose its inclusion, so I figured this was a good way to make a concession. Martin
- The fact that you did not find contact information only strengthens fair use of the image. We should avoid copyright paranoia and follow a simple axiom: Try not to get into trouble. It seems very unlikely that fair use of the Corrie photo will get us into trouble, so I see no reason not to include it. The article about Corrie is inevitably sentimental, so are the photos -- this is not POV as long as there are no distortions (even by omission). We have the flag burning photo, for example. Ed's placement of the additional photos at the bottom of the article was a very good decision, and this is the way it should stay. The only concession I am willing to make is to remove photos where a request for permission is explicitly denied (even though fair use should still protect us in these cases). --Eloquence 22:57 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I certainly agree that Wikipedia/Bomis/Jimmy Wales is unlikely to be sued over this picture. Further, I didn't upload it, so I'm unlikely to be sued. I wasn't being paranoid about that - that's why I left it up for a month without doing anything about it! :)
Personally I think this is a case where we should distinguish between something being legally possible, and something being desirable from the POV of creating a GFDL encyclopedia. However, I don't feel strongly about it either way, so I'm happy to sit on the fence.
Presumably, though, I'd be right to remove the photo from user:RachelCorrie, though, because that page surely can't count as fair use, because it's not educational or providing a commentary? Martin
- The question is, why pick this particular image? The other images are just as much copyrighted by default. Should we remove the flag burning photo next? Wikipedia has no size constraints. Building a gallery on a particular article's subject is completely acceptable.
- The User:RachelCorrie page should probably be deleted if the account is not used.--Eloquence 23:37 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Because removing the flag burning photo would make the article biased. I guess in my sliding scale of Bad Things on Wikipedia, biased pages <<< unbiased pages with fair use photos <<< unbiased pages with GFDL photos.
As it happens though, the only non-GFDL photos on Rachel Corrie are "Corrie burning flag at protest", "Protecting a well", "After being crushed", and "At Burning Man 2002". The rest I've got email permission to use under the GFDL - check the image description pages. (I can send you the emails, if you like). If the deletion of "At Burning Man 2002" had gone through without any objections, I'd have listed "After being crushed" as well, but I'd have kept the other two.
By the way, when you restored the montage, you didn't restoreImage:RachelCorrie08.jpg - was that deliberate, or an oversight? Martin
- Bias is in the eye of the beholder. The flag burning photo is not very useful because it does not show the flag in its unburned state, thereby obscuring the actual message. Not that I want it deleted -- it was widely reproduced and complements the photo collection nicely -- but the allegations of "bias" by removing this or that particular picture are very hard to prove. I think we can do with one less family picture, but then I would not delete the Burning Man one, because I find it more flattering -- which in itself could already be interpreted as a biased decision again. The non-removal of photo 8 was an oversight, but I think we have enough bulldozer pictures. --Eloquence 00:13 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
Eloquence, Image:Rachel fractured.jpeg is from [ http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030317/170/3jfne.html http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030317/170/3jfne.html], which specifically says, All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.. Do you object to his picture being deleted? I have also asked about several of the other pictures linked on the page I shall not name, and am hoping that the person who uses that page will deign to let us know where he/she got them from. -- Zoe
- Zoe, fair use is part of the US Copyright Code and always applicable for educational purposes. Nevertheless, this is not part of the Rachel Corrie page and we already have enough photos of the accident, so I have no objection to its deletion. --Eloquence 08:28 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
You seem to have me confused with somebody else. Why would I want to work on disinfo? Terry Gander