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! -&#35918&#30505 Kanji = &#38597&#35527 - (graceful+talk) -&#35918&#30505

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

Eloquence, I just noticed your entry on Wikipedia:Instant Messaging Wikipedians. You mention Jabber, but you give only a user ID. On Jabber, there are multiple servers that can all communicate with each other. To communicate with you, people need the full address, (i.e. Eloquence@jabber.org, WeAreAllJesse@theoretic.com, JoeSchmoe@projectyounite.com). Incidentally, I am WeAreAllJesse@theoretic.com, and seeing your entry has given me a renewed interest in Jabber. =) --cprompt

Eloquence, my compliments for the rewriting of circumcision. It´s eloquent and well-balanced. Thanks. Kosebamse 07:10 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Ha! I arrive at your talk page to say ... pretty much exactly what Kosebamse just said ... and he has already said it. Thankyou for taking that difficult topic in hand and doing what appears to be (on the basis of a hurried inspection just now) an excellent job of it. Tannin

I would like to add that most of the article is indeed about the pros and cons of routine circumcision. I agree that it would be a good idea to split it up into a short article about circumcision as a medical procedure and a ritual practice; and another one about, say, routine circumcision in neonates. I don´t like to do it myself because I haven´t followed the discussions around the topic but I believe that it would be an, ehm, encyclopedic way of arranging these things. Kosebamse 08:45 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. That was a lot of work. Thankfully, there's a tremendous amount of information available on the web. I tried to be more inclusive of the pro-circumcision opinions, but what I found interesting is that these are rarely backed up, if at all. Even the penile cancer myth is perpetuated on virtually all pro-circ. sites, in spite of the efforts by the American Cancer Society to eliminate it.

If nobody else does it, I'll probably split away the entire "Medical analysis" section. I don't think there should be more than 2 articles (circumcision+medical analysis of circumcision) for the time being. --Eloquence 15:29 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Agree. The main article should, however, include a bit or two about the medical side so that the casual reader can get a comprehensive picture without digging too deep into the controversies. Kosebamse 17:32 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Isn't philosophy supposed to be done in armchairs? Graft 15:01 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

That sounds like armchair philosophy to me. In any case, a POV rant within an article is hardly acceptable. Different ideas need to be attributed and contrasted against each other. --Eloquence 15:15 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

POV rant? Was it really that bad? -- Evercat 22:05 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

It just looked a bit out of place. As soon as you write something like "However, this is not a serious problem .." you are probably in POV territory. Articles should be written so that almost everybody can agree with them because they provide different perspectives in attributed form. Also, discussing a complex subject like omniscience in a couple of sentences almost seems blasphemous ;-). Anyway, thanks for improving the original version, no offense intended. --Eloquence 22:16 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Heh. OK. Does what I replaced it with seem OK now? The paradox thing was pretty trivial, to be honest, but the issue with free will is much more substantial. -- Evercat 22:19 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

My edits are my response. --Eloquence 22:29 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

OK, thanks, looks good. -- Evercat 22:30 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Re. your comments to SR: For what it's worth, there are other ways of looking at the practice of asking for help from a select number of contributors. After only a short time, it's not hard to tell who the contributors are that are the most productive to work with. I have a short list myself. They aren't people who agree with me, but people who can be relied on to do a little work thinking about my edits and are the most likely to make something more generally useful out of my work. I trust them not because they agree with me, but in retrospect working through their disagreements has brought about better results. Mkmcconn 18:12 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I can see that to apply in principle, but if you read Talk:Supernaturalization, it certainly looks a lot like the Internet variant of the old game of "Hey buddies, let's kick the newbie around" to me. In any case, sometimes it's hard to see the distinction between "productive to work with" and "convenient to get their support". This is why open forums are important.--Eloquence 18:23 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The strange fact is that, my short list is made up almost entirely of people who kicked me around as a newbie. Mkmcconn

Well, there we have it then. You are obviously a masochist. :-) --Eloquence 19:22 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

;-) I didn't say that all of my tormentors are on the list. Mkmcconn

E, I posted a detailed reply to your comment on my page, Slrubenstein

Re: Sonya L: [2] & [3]. 'Nuf said? -- John Owens 18:31 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The Black Widow connection is suspicious, but I am generally opposed to reverting users on principle. They should either be banned, or not be banned, but reverting perfectly good edits seems like a waste of effort to me. Furthermore, it is still possible that Sonya is not actually the same person as DW/Black Widow.--Eloquence

Hi Eloquence -- Thanks for your support over supernaturalization. I didn't realize RK was a theist too. I'll do my best to come up with some stuff for it -- e.g. there's a good experiment on the formation of "superstition" in pigeons by Skinner. Not that I like him or some of the applications of his ideas much. Jacquerie27 21:20 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Do have I the right to put anything I want on my own page? JohnQ

You cannot violate other people's copyrights, not even on your own page. See Wikipedia:Copyright. --Eloquence

lol! That was not really my point. I was not to put a link to the MP3 version of "American Life"!

That was a nice talk, wasn't it?! JohnQ

Not quite. Just try to play nice with others, familiarize yourself with our policies, and we will all get along. --Eloquence 19:02 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering, have you a software to edit pages? The date for instance, is added automatically or manually?

As I said, you should delve into our documentation. You can sign by typing ~~~ or ~~~~ (with timestamp). --Eloquence 19:12 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you! Marymary 19:15 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I sent back that list of questions for that wiki article, with a set of answers. I hope I included enough soundbites for the article. lol ÉÍREman 05:06 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely! I knew I could count on you. Thanks a lot for your help. In part II I'm comparing Wikipedia with other encyclopedias and collaborative projects like Everything2 and H2G2, and understanding what makes people tick can be very enlightening. Regarding the phone bill, yeah, we had a similar situation with the Deutsche Telekom for a long time, but by now, flat fee access has become reasonably affordable. It's only a question of time, I guess -- but these monopolists tend to stick around and extract as much profit as they can. --Eloquence 05:11 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Sure is, Eloquence. I do it when there seems to be some question as to the bona fides of the new user. Once they have either a talk page or a user page, I can look at the edit history. Sometimes they turn out to be a vandal, and can be appropriately reverted, other times they turn out to be a perfectly good new contributor. If you know of an easy way to get to the edit history of a new user without doing this, let me know and I'll do it that way instead. Tannin

Ah yes, the same thing I said regarding the Talk page applies: Just follow the link to the non-existent page and you will see the "User contributions" link in the sidebar regardless. I implemented this some time ago to address the exact problem you describe. Try it on User:Bob O'Bob. --Eloquence 05:24 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Ahh! I never looked in the side bar! It wasn't at the bottom of the page, so I thought it wasn't there. Thankyou! Tannin

If I can butt in here, my own reason I would do it, if I did, which I never have, would be so I can add it to my watchlist. That's one thing I'm pretty darn sure you can't do without creating something there first, though I wouldn't think it would even need a period, just a space should be adequate. -- John Owens 08:28 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Eloquence. Is there any reason for your moving of Wikipedia:Wikipetiquette to Wikipedia:Wikiquette? Does anyone else actually call it that? A "grep" of my saved mailing list e-mails suggests that "Wikipetiquette" is the more commonly used term among Wikipedians. In fact, "grep" turned up only three appearances of the word "Wikiquette", and all from the same person. I expect you know who that was... ;) -- Oliver P. 05:56 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

While Wikipetiquette is more common among Wikipedians (94 Google hits), wikiquette is used by other wikis as well, and a nice general term (384 Google hits). It is shorter and doesn't sound like petting. --Eloquence 06:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

That was absolutely adorable of you to create the Wikipedia:WikiLove. I was wondering who would do it, and in which delay! Please, just don't tell me you made it *only* for money, that would ruin the spirit.<br< You may pick up what you need of my offertory to pay yourself of your good deed. In the spirit of WikiLove, do not forget to leave some for other souls. Peace and Love. User:anthere