User talk:Eloquence: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Glamour photography versus "porn")
m (Oh, don't worry)
Line 101: Line 101:
   
 
Lets just keep it in [[Talk:Bomis]], I'll copy stuff there for point of record so people reading the article know the discussion happened anyway. --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 
Lets just keep it in [[Talk:Bomis]], I'll copy stuff there for point of record so people reading the article know the discussion happened anyway. --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Oh, don't worry ==
  +
  +
The reason I often throw in so many random smilies people sometimes mistake me for a illiterate AOL'er is because I tend to be bad at wording things in that people think I'm angry when I'm actually not (sometimes I disagree strongly, but I don't mind a debate :)) ([[Asperger's_syndrome#Speech_and_language_peculiarities|pssst]] --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] <sup>'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''</sup>'' 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:33, 25 December 2005

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)
  • Removed all comments up to December 24, 2004.--Eloquence* 11:25, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Removed all comments up to June 15, 2005.--Eloquence* 05:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed all comments up to December 8, 2005.--Eloquence* 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Pompeii Priapus 2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pompeii Priapus 2.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is a work of public domain art that was created about 2000 years ago, so a specific source is not necessary. I've tagged it with {{PD-art}}.--Eloquence* 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

best friend on wikipedia right now?

I just saw your discussion with User:Durin on his talk page. Originally our positions were far far apart, but now they seem almost identical. It's so strange that de facto you're now potentially one of my best friends on wikipedia. *blink*. I'm sure this won't last, I'll be sure to get you next time ;-)Kim Bruning 05:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always and consistently argued that adminship should be given to pretty much anyone who can be trusted, and revoked if they cause trouble. Monobook.js (potential vector for scripting attacks) and image deletions currently necessitate a somewhat more careful approach. I think there are a couple of history-related actions which are hard to revert, too. If you want a more permissive model, working on these fronts - by coding or lobbying - would probably help. The simplest short term solution would be a new class of "trusted users" who can't perform actions which aren't reversible.--Eloquence* 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

question on wikidb

Hi, M7 told me you are "the most qualified person to know life, death and miracles of getting the best performances from the db", so i'm asking you a very simple question: i'm trying to do some queries on the SQL dump of it.wiki, and managed to write this select. But it is soooooo slooooow... do you think is possible to write a better query? Or, what do you think about this? (the regexp is from Leonard Vertighel) (oh, btw, this query should search the db for images without alternative text (ALT parameter in HTML) and write a list of page names)

 SELECT CONCAT("# [[", page_title, "]]")
  FROM page WHERE page_namespace='0'
  JOIN revision ON page_id=rev_page
  JOIN text ON rev_text_id=old_id
  WHERE old_text REGEXP "\\[\\[[[:space:]]*(image|immagine)[[:space:]]*:[^]]+\\|[[:space:]]*(thumb(nail)?|right|left|center|none|frame|[[:digit:]]+px)?[[:space:]]*\\]\\]"
 

Thanks --Iron Bishop 15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm definitely not the most qualified when it comes to DB query questions. Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, Domas Mituzas, James Day all have a better grasp of MySQL in general and our current DB design in particular -- I have no idea why anyone would call me the "most qualified". If you have quite a bit of memory, I do think it might be fastest to operate on the XML dump directly. You could also load the dump into memory in manageable parts, parse them, and search the XML tree. An unindexed query on lots of raw text is always going to be slow, especially with REGEXP. As I understand it, the FULLTEXT index doesn't support REGEXP searches, unfortunately. Please do let me know if you come up with a better search strategy.--Eloquence* 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for deserting your sockpuppet as well, since you abandoned the Wikipadia business as your main income dream. I don't know what to do with all the assembled evidence, shall i give it to the press or leave you in peace? You removed the signs of your buyable character already, so i will probably leave it at that. Say hello to Angie and stay away. 60.38.70.147 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never maintained any sock puppets on Wikipedia and have no idea what you are talking about.--Eloquence* 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

ah no sockpuppet par definition, but maybe another identity ?60.38.70.147 13:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. I always stand with my name for what I say and believe. I really don't know who you are or what you want.--Eloquence* 14:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

edited your comment

maybe I'm feeling touchy about being nice to people today, but I just edited a comment of yours lightly in the hope that you were just in a bad mood. Feel free to revert me if you wish. I won't re-revert. Mozzerati 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize "chicken little" could be seen as rude in this context. Thanks.--Eloquence* 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Glamour photography versus "porn"

In reply to your message on my talk page:

If it's not sex, it comes under glamour photography as per the definition in the article. Nudity without any sex acts actually happening...
You say "threesomes", but from what I've researched about Bomis it was never more than that. I bet in those "threesomes" they never actually had any sex.
What have you got against poor Jimbo anyway? You of all people, a Wikimedia developer...
(Feel free to either reply here or my talk page) --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia maintains an NPOV regardless of the topic of the article. I am afraid you are letting your loyalty to Jimbo come in the way of maintaining a neutral point of view. Shaved pubic hair and posing with sex toys may qualify as "glamour photography" in the strictest sense, but when describing it from the outside, the term "softporn" is much more accurate and widely understood. We do not use euphemisms.--Eloquence* 23:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(hm.. Why is there a different reply here than on my talk page?)
Innocent until proven guilty - The burden of proof is on you, as the one adding this material to the article... "I'm inclined to only state what we know for sure from the facts and images which are public" (quote you): But the fact is you don't know that they ever did more than that, and from the evidence it seems unlikely that anything more was shown as you described:- suggestive poses without sex acts
You say "sucking" - did you see a video? Were you subscribed to the premium members section? I doubt it. I bet you're referring to a dildo (which is, after all, just a stick of plastic) placed in the mouth for a pose, or as you said, placed between the breasts ("rubbing" suggests action, you cannot tell this from a photo) - each photo is carefully staged, it's just for show.
This is nothing to do with "loyalty" - I am interested in keeping NPOV here, which you don't seem to have: or at least more than slightly biased against Jimbo for some interest or another.
Posing IS NOT sex. Photography of humans nude in their natural state, sometimes in suggestive poses (Glamour photography) IS NOT sex. Pornography is sex.
One of your main arguments is that the keywords (not sites, which are added automatically depending on the keywords) are added manually: So what? A large part of the internet is pornography (I'm sure we've all heard various jokes about the internet being "made for porn"), and they are doing no more than automatically maintaining links to other websites that contain keywords that people often search for (mostly men - but a large chunk of active internet users are men). If they did not include "porn" in this list they would be lying.
It's hardly the same as if they made the sites themselves. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be turning this into some kind of moral argument. As I said, I have no moral objections to Bomis (other than that I consider much of what they create to be effectively search engine spam). We are, however, trying to neutrally and factually document the company, and it is a fact that Bomis focuses on collecting URLs related to popular search terms, and that in doing so, focuses primarily on pornography and celebrities. These facts should be stated in the article.--Eloquence* 00:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed the bit about "your name in connection with porn" from the copy->talk:Bomisjust for your own privacy (I guess that's what you meant?) - add it back in if you want --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about Bomis

Lets just keep it in Talk:Bomis, I'll copy stuff there for point of record so people reading the article know the discussion happened anyway. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry

The reason I often throw in so many random smilies people sometimes mistake me for a illiterate AOL'er is because I tend to be bad at wording things in that people think I'm angry when I'm actually not (sometimes I disagree strongly, but I don't mind a debate :)) (pssst --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)