User talk:Duae Quartunciae/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A talk page for Mr Kehler

I have made a subpage, where Mr W. Kehler is welcome to talk with me, until he is able to get his own user page. Click on the link below. Mr Kehler put a response here on my user page, and I have moved it into the subpage provided. Others are also welcome to join in if they wish.

Click on: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)

Hello Duae, I thought you would want to know that your sub-page appeared in a question/report at WP:AN. I'm not sure how it got there, but I think someone noticed the page and wondered what it was. I posted a short notice there to explain, but I think it would be good if you visit and offer your comments. They may be able to help you with the confusing situation of the changing IP address for this editor. Here it the link to the WP:AN report. Best Wishes --Parsifal _Hello 03:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The whole conversation page idea got out of hand. I've given an account and some relevant links at the noticeboard, and will be interested to see if anyone has any useful suggestions. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Having made an attempt to establish some level of communication, I am going to continue with it a bit longer. I have now made a more organized second page at User:Duae_Quartunciae/W._Kehler/Issues. Good idea? Bad idea? Time will tell. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew, that's quite a page. I don't think you'll be seeing my name there unless you forcibly copy this text over, but I do want to make one comment, not specific to that page. Links to arXiv are best done to the abstracts, e.g. astro-ph/0701132v4 (the "v4" at the end of the URL is optional, leave it off and you get the most current version, which is the same in this case). It's more friendly that way, as the interested parties can decide to open pdf or postscript, for instance, or maybe just read the abstract, or choose the CiteBase link if they want. Tim Shuba 13:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I agree; though I have probably slipped up sometimes. I'll keep it in mind, especially in the main namespace. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Quality Control

Hi Duae... I saw your new essay on your user page. I like your solution. It allows the current process to continue without interference, but also allows for more confidence in checked or approved articles. The problem with it though is that it can't pass the muster of ultra-egalitarianism, with prejudice against intellectual advancement. I believe that started out well-intended, based in equality of rights and purity of the consensus form, but as ideals those are by definition, not fully practical. And the result seems to be almost a backlash against acceptance of expertise - not among all editors, but among enough of them to stop qualifications from entering the system, other than when a qualified editor gains the local respect of other editors in their field and rallies them by consensus; an inefficient process.

As far as getting real information from WP when I need to know something, I do use the articles, but if I have even a shred of a question about what I see, then I either follow the actual references, or I read the talk pages and history to see if there are problems. Especially for current or changing information, WP is valuable, and I do use it. But as you say, don't trust the information without verifying... use it as a starting point. One of the most important points about that is that an article can change literally from second to second, and most readers don't realize that. They visit, usually from Google I imagine, read what they came for, and leave. Five seconds later, the mathematical formula or historical date that they retrieved could be different on that very same page, and they have no idea that could happen.

Aside from all that, there is something I really like about WP. It's a sort of grand experiment combining sociology, interpersonal behavioral psychology, linguistics, politics, all sorts of fields, into one giant laboratory that is being allowed to self-organize. Even the rules and policies are being edited from day to day. So thinking mathematically, it's a recursive experiment, because what happens when people read WP:NPOV or WP:V as a support for a point? They think they know what that means in a discussion, because they read it when they first got here and started editing. But maybe that policy has changed since then. How often does someone click on a link to WP:CONSENSUS when they see it in a discussion? Not very often, I'm sure. Here's an example where that fundamental policy changed just a week ago: [1]. Is that an important change? Does it affect how editors approach their work?

So, what does it mean when we quote policy that is constantly changing as a basis for making decisions in articles, or even decisions in policy discussions?

I haven't thought this out in detail, but I have been very intrigued by how it works, and when I saw your essay I thought it would be interesting to share some of these thoughts.

At the base of it all, while Wikipedia itself says it is an encyclopedia, another view is that it's a new way for people to interact, and we don't quite know what it is creating. Is something true just because consensus says it's true? On Wikipedia, yes, as long as there are some references that look like solid third-party sources. But does that help us build a more efficient solar panel that costs less to manufacture? Only if there are some very skilled editors working on those articles and they also have the people skills to address the problems caused by less knowledgeable editors who might be really good at persuasive writing, or navigating policy points, or (as I think you've seen in action) just plain ignoring policy and being pushy with fringe ideas.

In a way, it's a noble process. It's also the biggest chess game ever known.

Thanks for your thoughts, enjoy your editing... --Parsifal _Hello 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I'm impressed to get a comment so soon. I really put it up for my own interest and to think about it. I may put it up for consideration in the formal channels after I've had a change to polish a bit. Your point on egalitarianism is a very good one. I have accordingly added a section to my proposal, to underline that editors are not expected to be experts; merely level headed individuals with a solid commitment to wikipedia official principles.

I'm also going to open up my proposal for editing by anyone who wants. Feel free to hack away. If I don't like any changes, I'll just revert them without mercy. :-) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want more input from others, you could post a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Keep in mind, you may be upsetting the apple cart, so you could get some rather strong responses (I'm not suggesting you hold back, or not hold back, as I said, I like your idea... just mentioning that I've noticed in other policy-related discussions, they can get rather heated).

You may be interested in checking out some of these links: Help:Modifying and Creating policy, Category:Wikipedia proposals, Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, and Wikipedia:Expert editors. --Parsifal _Hello 06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject banner

Well, the Zionist banner was meant to be serious in a way. Please see WP:AN#WikiProject_Zionism.3F for the explanation. 129.170.116.177 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. However, I felt that the manner in the which the point was being made was inappropriate and deliberately misleading, so I removed it. No offense intended. There may be some way you can mark up a more appropriate information box that can be used to tag discussions where there is a suspected deliberate attempt by an outside group to influence Wikipedia towards a particular point of view. If you try this, keep it as neutral as possible.

In general, however, I recommend patience. The general issue of articles on Allegations of apartheid is apparently being reviewed, as well as the attempt by Hasbara [2] to manipulate Wikipedia as they consider best. Thanks for the note. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Kehler page

• By you imposed wfc Kehler is not suitable as my fathers main Email, used by me. He means that he got meanwhile more spam.
• T-COM Germany promised that I soon will have DSL at my home (a bit away from cities in country).
• Our club executives (I am the 2nd in my club, one of 3 sections) decided to take a very fast VDSL, gratis by a sponsor, with an option >16.000 kB/s and a LINUX-HP to be more safe. They offered me to perhaps even completely take the old T-COM of the club (if my DSL works at home) and even to pay the line while I act for the club as its writer.

But I suggest now to put for me personally an existing, sleeping NICKNAME DeepBlueDiamond with a still existing sleeping email DeepBlueDiamond@aol.com valid until I get T-COM; then I intend to become DeepBlueDiamond@t-online.de

ok? - Thanks for help, I think we come together if the agreement works - and then my DSL-lite. 84.158.239.236 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think some kind of user account would be a great idea. I don't know what to call you. You've signed quite a number of your posts here with an email address, and that does tend to pick up spam. The best thing might be to sign up with an account here at Wikipedia, and then contact people through the Wikipeda talk page channels. It's what I do; I never mention any email address here for precisely the reason you mention. If you prefer the page currently W. Kehler to be renamed to something else, just let me know. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(I have done the rename from WFCKehler to W. Kehler.) —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Our problem with by you hidden pages to SHOW

Your good meant attempt to hide sections had a problem here: Neither direct links to an inner section nor even a clic from the table of content fuctioned.

If you are talking about the attempt I made to manage the W. Kehler page some time ago, by allowing some older sections to be collapsed using the NavFrame method, then note that I put it back as soon as you said you preferred not to have it. You will find, by the way, that when this facility is used in a page, links all continue to work when the linked sections are expanded, but not when they are collapsed. But this is irrelevant now; I removed the framing and it is all one long quarter Megabyte of continuous text, just as you apparently like. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OOPS. I have just figured out the problem. My apologies! I moved the page for you just fine, but I made some of the links from this page go to the talk page of W. Kehler. Sorry; my mistake. It's nothing to do with hide/show; it is actually about namespaces. I will fix up the links. The problem is a bit subtle. There are several different "namespaces" in wikipedia, including a "User" space, and a "User talk" space. In this way, there is the "W. Kehler" page in my user space, and the "W. Kehler" discussion page in my "User talk" space. It is analogous to articles in the "Main" space, and discussion pages in the "Talk" space. Stand by. Links being fixed now. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) All fixed. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE look into my a bit restored new page to understand a bit my allergy, especially to "mainstream experts", ok? DeepBlueDiamond 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your new user page. Best of luck with it. You can use your page to tell people a bit about yourself, which sometimes helps. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Unique WIKI-ID also for changing IP's?

FOR UNDERSTANDING: I'm only "W.Kehler".

Our Astro club has got old WIN98 equipment 500 Mhz working perfectly after tunings.

I personally mainly try to act there with my 2.5Ghz XP-Lap.

QUESTION: Could I sign-on WIKI also with changing IP?

You know: I used my father's PC with his DSL and Email at his home.

When I'll get a stable DSL (promised by AOL since 3 y.) for my home by T-COM in "flat country", our club will have a sponsored gratis LINUX-server.

QUESTION: Can I act then either from my home and from that LINUX server with one WIKI-ID?

Could "my page" than(!) be transferred with a tempory later erased link from the old one?

"Our" 3 clubs (sections) are distributed in a circle of until 100 miles. Nearly half of our section's experts (mainly resigning but still a bit partly active pensioners) are more near to me than to club's centre. Could they act either here or there e.g. with different IPs but one new club's WIKI-ID only? 84.158.205.158 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Each person should have their own individual account. Wikipedia does not allow shared accounts, and such accounts are likely to be blocked. You can read more details at Username policy — Sharing accounts. I have nothing personally to do with that rule. I think it is a sensible rule, but what I think doesn't matter. I still recommend obtaining an account, but it's up to you of course.

There is nothing to stop you using an account through a dynamic ID. You get the same access to your own user space whichever IP address you happened to be using at the time. All your information is stored here at the Wikipedia servers, so it makes no difference whether you access Wikipedia from home, or from a club, or from an internet cafe, or anywhere you like. There is nothing to transfer.

Thanks, I'll do so soon, at club only with our Administrator in vacancy for 3 weeks (since Friday?). To next page: WELL DONE! 84.158.208.213 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the page I set up for you, to be W. Kehler. The old page now redirects. Sorry about that! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing discussion is now at W. Kehler/Issues. This subpage is under tighter editorial control. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Physics discussion moved

As I said previously (in this edit) I am not going to have debate over basic physics in my user talk space. Sorry, but that's firm. More material was added to the section, so I have transferred the whole thing over to a new section in the W. Kehler page. I will have some time to say more there, later; but not right now, and not on this page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellenberger NPOV dispute

You added the NPOV dispute tag to the Ellenberger page--but I don't see any discussion on the talk page that explains what is disputed. I think the page has shaped up and is looking pretty good now--is there still something that merits that tag? Lippard 16:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jim! I think there is. I put a brief comment on the discussion page last month to point out my concern, and I don't see it addressed as yet. The problem is that I might simply be wrong, and I don't have the time to check out all the background to put up a proper response. I simply don't have time over the next few days to do much, but I might try and put another comment in the discussion page. Of all the people best able to address my concerns, you'd be at the top of the list. Suggest further discussion should be in the article page, rather than here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Military navigation templates in th Hundred Years War

Resolved

 – —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, there were some template changes going on today; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Who_the_heck_broke_the_battle_boxes.3F. I don't see anything particularly wrong with leaving everything inside a single div, but it should be safe to remove it if you'd like to simplify the markup there. Thanks! Kirill 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting if off just for a bit. I'd appreciate your help on another issue. When you have a lot of floating boxes stacked up on the right hand side of the page, they seem to have bad consequences for the placement of "edit" tags on other sections. Basically, the stacking seems to be achieved using style="clear: both;" in the CSS. The section "edit" tags, which align to the right, end up being pushed below all the floating boxes except the last, which is very ugly. I have resolved this problem on my own user page by wrapping up all the stacked boxes within a single container box.

This issue is a problem at Hundred years war. There is an Info box and four campaign boxes there at present, all floating to the right, and they cause the "edit" tags to stack up on my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.6). But when the "div" element is in place, the "edit" tags are correctly placed.

I've been testing, and you can see a comparison of stacking with and without the div element at my sandbox. Is the interaction of "edit" tags with floating boxes a known issue? Is there a recommended way to avoid the problem? Thanks for any help —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 02:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes on both counts; see WP:BUNCH. ;-) Kirill 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have put FixHTML templates into the problem page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oil and water

It seems that assuming good faith, WP:BLP, and the WP:PW (pro-wrestling project) are like oil and water. I have been contributing to this site for many months now, and the only group of people who find it necessary to harass when BLP policy is applied are members of the pro-wrestling project. If you don't believe me, take 5 biographies of living people which are poorly sourced or not sourecd at all. Choose 4 at random, and then 1 pro-wrestling biography. Try to clean them up and remove unverified material and see what happens for yourself. Burntsauce 23:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Have you tried to do this to other biographies of oh say, the football WikiProject or the basketball WikiProject? No, you haven't, and I'm sure I wouldn't be surprised when messages come to your talk page about if you tried. I have no problem when someone tries to help pro wrestling articles, but blanking them when they are already tagged as needing sources, is wrong. — Moe ε 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. I won't be letting this extend too much further on this talk page. I don't have anything useful to add myself beyond what was said in the alert. Just a heads up that an extended exchange here will be unwelcome. Thanks for the comments. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I won't furthur comment here, outside this comment. :p Thank you for you're time. — Moe ε 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Are you deleting the facilities section

Why are you deleting the list of facilities? Certainly the physical locations are necessary. Also, some of the information included in the article was to answer objections of verifiability. Those pieces of text were to be deleted once it was agreed that the sources were properly cited. BmikeSci 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on the talk page of the article itself. Also, when adding new stuff to talk pages, it should go at the bottom, rather than the top. It's no big deal, but it is best to stick to accepted conventions. I'll be moving this bit soon as well. Further discussion on my talk page is not welcome, however; let's keep it where everyone will see it. Thanks —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

An award

Wizard:Able to resolve complex issues in Physics articles, shows excellent trends in new article creation, expansion, referencing and shows efforts towards sharing the wealth of knowledge beyond wikipedia.

Please don't burn out Duae. You have taken on a lot in a short period of time (I.E. WP:PHYS and WP:WQA and elsewhere). Keep up the good work and stay strong. Cheers —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks! Actually, the time I have spent on Wikipedia recently is a reflecting of burnout in other parts of life. I'm filling in time; and am likely to scale back here at some point. Not because of burntout here, so much as resolving burnout elsewhere. Thanks very much for the kind words. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Cheers for fixing my talk page. I've never had anything to do with that user or any articles remotely related to that topic, so I think you're right that it was random canvassing. Have a nice day, - Zeibura ^(Talk) 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

For boiling down the debate at WP:FUR to its core principles. It seems to have brought reason back into the room. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I especially value this comment given that we have some disagreements on images, and I'm delighted to see that they can be pursued cordially and with mutual regard. I have also made a suggestion for a similar addition to be made to the guideline itself. See Proposal for a subsection on application of polic. Revisions, suggestions, and comment are welcome. I said earlier one of the image talk pages I was contemplating taking up the issue more generally; this stands as the most constructive and helpful way I could think of for doing that. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree that the issue is a thorny one. The ArbCom addressed some of these issues in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali, but WP:NFCC#8 is going to be a constant source of tension between free-content advocates on the one side, and people who care deeply about particular articles on the other. With respect, and best regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A concern

Greetings. We obviously have much in common: an interest in non-free content, a desire to consistently uphold policy, etc. It's always good to work with someone who cares about our policy and understands why it's important. Even if we disagree on how policy should be interpreted or applied in certain cases, I'd like to consider you an ally. But there have been several instances lately where you have stated that I have an interest in changing the meaning of NFCC #8. I think you've been misrepresenting my views on the subject. I don't want NFCC #8 to mean anything more than what it says, and I honestly don't have any ulterior agenda. If I sometimes paraphrase "this image does not convey significant encyclopedic information, beyond what could be expressed by words alone" as "this image isn't essential for understanding the topic", I really don't mean that I want the criterion revised. I have advocated keeping many, many images which were not truly necessary for fully understanding the topic, but that nonetheless provided important encyclopedic information that could not be adequately conveyed by text alone. I hope we can assume good faith about each other, and work together on these cases. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was half way through composing a comment for your talk page! It is currently too long; I am trying to prune it. I'll put it here instead, soon. I did not want to take up the other pages with it; I'm glad you apparently feel the same way.

I do most certainly think that your paraphrases of the guideline pragmatically constitute a change to policy. You've said that you do paraphrase. I accept that you are trying in good faith to capture the intent. I think your attempts fail, and constitute a misrepresentation of policy. Not a malicious one; not an insincere desire to impose change. But a failure of comprehension all the same. The example you give is dreadful; a major difference in meaning that is likely to work to the detriment of the goal given in the guideline of a free high-quality encyclopedia.

Or perhaps I have the failure of comprehension. What I would like to occur is either for the guideline and policy wording to be strengthened, to match up better with the ways in which you describe it, since I think there does need to be a strengthening for your paraphrases to be the natural reading. Either that or I would like the guideline to give a clearer recognition that "significant increase" does not mean something fundamental to the whole topic, but another significant contribution to the whole, comparable to a significant paragraph or equation or quotation or any of the other items brought to articles to help a reader develop their understanding of a topic. Something which omitted would be a genuine detriment to the article's substance; but not a total demolition of the substance. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here goes. Didn't have time to make it shorter, sorry. :-)

In the image deletion debate for the Time magazine cover, you said:

I object to the notion that I am "misrepresenting" your position. I'm giving an honest description of how I see it. You're so close to dealing with disagreement on this with a fair recognition that there actually is honest disagreement. Just now I nearly dropped this rant in the discussion, with an associated AARGHH.... which would not have helped. :-)

I am in good faith describing what I see your position as doing; and it is disruptive to demand that I refrain from expressing this view of the problems I see with your position. You can't object to that as "misrepretation" unless you are just wanting to stifle all critical evaluation that fails to fall over and see things as you do. I appreciate that you disagree with me on the appropriate use of non-free images and their impact on understanding; but we DO disagree. Let's allow that we disagree! I am not saying that you do this with any malicious intent; I've appreciated some of your positive words.

The guideline recognizes a tension between high quality and the principle of free use. The NFC guideline supports both principles, and recognizes that sometimes there is a conflict between them. What the guideline demands from a non-free image is "significant increased understanding". There's no notion there of "full understanding" at all; I don't think any such abstraction exists. In the kinds of topics we look at there is a scope for study and investigation to give increased understanding almost indefinitely, without ever reaching such a thing as "full" understanding. The policy does not say anything about "full" understanding. It speaks of "increase".

For example... I certainly do consider that the Time magazine cover gives significant increased understanding of the issue. It does it in several ways. There is also explicit precedent for recognition that a magazine cover can give a significant increased understanding, using a comparable example. The example in the guideline is the Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover. It shows a profile shot of Demi Moore from thigh to head, standing naked and pregnant with one arm over her breasts and the other cradling her swollen abdomen. That text description gives you a fair understanding of the cover, but not nearly as good as seeing it for yourself. Seeing the image evidently gives increased understanding under the guideline. That kind of cover is identified as possibly admissible. The question is going to be how much significance is enough, I guess, but the bland dismissal of significance at all, or the imposition of impossible hurdles, contrasts with the phrasing of policy and the chosen illustrations in the guideline.

It really ought to be plain as a pikestaff that images often give significant increased understanding; that's why they are so useful in a high quality reference. If it wasn't for the fact we are discussing non-free images where some folks want to set almost impossibly high hurdles, this would not be controversial at all. Images like the naked Demi Moore cover or the Evolution Wars cover employ carefully chosen and constructed iconography, which plainly gives increased understanding. Now I appreciate that you might want to argue the toss about just how significant it has to be; but with the example of Demi Moore explicit in the guideline, I think you are very thin ice indeed to say that the iconography of the Time cover does not also provide comparable increased understanding in the same way. Both issues are significant cultural objects in their own right, directly relevant to the article topic. Other ways in which understanding is increased include an understanding for identification of the magazine, which is likely to be relevant for readers of the wikipedia article who might want to look it up in a stack of magazines at a library or somewhere like that; or the increased understanding by virtue of the natural speed and efficiency with which humans process and recall visual information pertinent to the topic, and so on. The role of identification is also explicit in the guideline as relevant.

These submissions should be recognized as good faith attempts to meet the policy. You can argue the extent of significance, or that the the significance is insufficient to override the principle of free use. I cordially disagree. But I don't consider it fair to the guideline or to the debate merely to dismiss out of hand the explanations as unworthy of even being considered in the balance. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Duae, I think the Demi Moore example may not be a good one. The difference there is that the cover itself was the subject of media commentary, parodies, copycat works, etc. It would be inappropriate in an article about pregnancy, for example. I don't see that was commentary on the covers of the specific magazines or books that are the subject of our debate. Sorry to butt in, just my two cents. Respectfully - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The cover is the critical point here as well! Look, the Time magazine article is not particularly important for its textual content. There are better sources than that. It is the very matter of a Times front cover recognition of religious dimensions to the controversy that is so significant. The particular emphasis provided by the iconography of the article is significant because of the whole matter of whether the controversy is a scientific debate or whether ID is inseparably linked with religion. One of the controversial and very damaging (for ID) features of the Kitzmiller decision is the answer it gives to the question posed on the cover, both as text and as iconography. And the article is focused on that case, with the cover itself bringing to national prominence the question that ID advocates wanted out of the arena.

I'm happy for the image to be judged on its merits. I consider this particular image to be about as well supported as any cover image could be! I would have thought it actually beats out the Vanity Fair example, in that the iconography is so much more pointed and so much more pertinent to major issues in the article. But perhaps that's just my interest in the topic. What really cheeses me off, however, is endless outright dismissals any need even to CONSIDER the value of the images to understanding, based on what I see as highly strained interpretations of a policy text that naturally understood should allow that there is a case here worthy of consideration. I want to assume good faith, I really do. But its becoming disruptive and vexatious the way this is being pursued. I really want this dealt with officially. Ideally I'd like the proper application of the guideline to be nailed down so that either you guys get brought back what is implied, or I do. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 17:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang in there, my friend! By the time we resolve this, you'll be a Wikipedia image policy expert, too! ;) You know, I was going to say that the Demi Moore cover had sourced commentary on the cover's cultural impact, but the statements in that paragraph are "citation needed"! How ironic - we really need to fix this, as that image is cited so often as an acceptable example of non-free magazine cover use. Anyway, the difference is that the Intelligent design article doesn't have any commentary on that particular Time magazine cover. That is the position that the deletion advocates are arguing from, and it has been generally accepted in previous deletion discussions, as identifying a particular copyrighted work (paraphrasing from the Foundation resolution). The people on the other side are saying, essentially, that the controversy on intelligent design is not "a particular copyrighted work", and thus doesn't need a copyrighted image to identify it. Am I explaining this well, or am I just confusing the issue more? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand just fine. But you are simply mistaken, understandably. The article does have commentary specifically on that cover, because I added it myself a few days ago. In my view the cover image stands alone as giving understanding in its own right, with the significance and relevance immediately apparent. But I was advised that there should be some additional text, so I added that also, and the article is improved as a result. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The counter-argument that is being made is that a picture of the cover in question is not necessary to understand the text as written, and there are no sources to show that this particular cover was notable or had any impact on society or on the debate. (Please understand that I'm not trying to argue with you here, just trying to explain the opposite side's position.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These arguments are so disruptive to the encyclopedia and injurious to the atmophere of co-operation because they keep going around in circles. I don't even see that this counter-argument is relevant. It appears to be founded on wording that simply does not appear in the policy.

We have that word "necessary" to understanding yet again. There's no such implication in the policy. We now have a "Verifiabilty" argument, that the cover must be shown to be notable by some additional reliable source. I don't think that would be hard to find, but it's simply not part of the policy requirements. Does the image give increased understanding? Yes it does. Would removing the image be to the detriment of understanding? Yes it would. Is there a free alternative available? No, there isn't. And so on. The image itself is from a reliable source, significant in its own right, considered in the text, contributing to understanding, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. I don't mind addressing the policy issues. But that is not where it ends.

These endless hoops, many of which are being pretty much pulled out of thin air, seem to not actually be about policy itself, but about a firm belief that every possible obstacle should be put in the way of non-free images. The policy, however, recognizes a trade off between quality and free-use, without giving one precedence over the other. And there is now another problem; the sheer volume of issues being raised, taking up everyone's time that would be better spent on the encyclopedia, fostering ill-will and irritation, and basically sending the whole operation to hell-in-a-handbasket. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's why some people feel that non-free content should be eliminated completely, like the German Wikipedia. (That's not my position, by the way.) I don't think you and I will come to agreement on this issue, but I hope we can continue to work together in an amicable way. Regards - Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any real lasting obstacle to working together. I also think that you and I and Quadell coming to an agreement together here on this user talk page is not going to be all that significant. Pleasant; perhaps, but not much more. I suspect we will normally not be overlapping much at all.

Right now the need is for a much broader level of agreement that will help not just the three of us work well together, but address the corrosive effects of the disagreement on concord throughout the whole community. I'm pleased to see you brought up the matters at the guideline discussion page. That is where there needs to be some resolution, even if limited, of such things as use of the word "necessary" and an alleged need to document notability in the same way as we require for content claims in main space articles. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I want to thank you, by the way, for your valuable work on article authorship. (Believe it or not, my primary work is not image patrolling, but obtaining free images from copyright holders, as shown on my userpage. I just help with image patrolling because they're shorthanded and backlogged.) I think Intelligent design is an example of the high quality that Wikipedia can produce. Best wishes to you, my friend, and please don't hesitate to drop me a line if there is ever anything I can do to help you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this. It's great to see the three of y'all talking in one place. Agreed that the lack of clarity about "free/non-free", "fair-use/NFC", "public domain/free-license", etc. etc. has an unnecessarily corrosive effect on user relationships. I believe this will take some time, perhaps months, maybe more, to sort out myth and ideology from fact regarding copyright, public domain, free-license, EDP for NFC and such, and allow regular participants in the image-and-media-files department of WP to get a better footing in copyright issues to guide the assessments of NFCCs and NFC in general. For the moment, I'd like to take some time away from the discussion to assemble some thoughts to present to the "only-free-license" and "no-fair-use" advocates. Among the problems are that free-licenses today frequently carry more restrictions than does valid "fair use/fair dealing" and public domain material with an expired copyright. Another issue here is the validity of the free licenses themselves, which often are presented not under the legal names of the persons claiming to grant free license, but instead online pseudonyms of various kinds, in addition to other widespread errors with free licenses. Further, no one has rights to license something in the public domain under a free-license. And a bunch of other things. Bottom line is, I suspect, that the appeal of the words "free content" and "free license" is illusory and misleading in many ways. Quadell and myself will, I imagine, be arguing intensively over certain practical and procedural issues in the near future, and likely also exchanging more notes and ideally some case-law examples of how courts have interpreted public domain and fair-use issues. Somewhere at the end of that, I think, is a more informed, more coherent conceptual framework that will enhance this aspect of the project-- at least that is my hope. Again, I'm gratified to see this exchange here. Good regards, Kenosis 00:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the interjection...

... at the WQA between Jiejunkong (t c) and Cydevil38 (t c). I'd reached the point where I had no idea how to respond to him anymore. I suppose I need more practice in dispute resolution... heh. Thanks again. --Darkwind (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the Children of the Century dispute

You should not use the IMDb's naming conventions as a point of reference regarding the title for a simple reason: IMDb always uses the original language title no matter what. Our conventions are not identical on that point. As far as the DVDs go, it is my understanding that the Region 2 disc is no longer in print. Which leaves only the R1 as the sole source in circulation. You might also want to peruse discussions about this which have recently been raised in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films, because there is a disparity between WP:NCF and WP:UE which has been recognized. It seems to me, however, that the Films project discussion created a consensus for Children of the Century. Anyway, I'm not entering the Children of the Century discussion anymore because I don't believe that Dohanlon will ever yield even were there overwhelming consensus in the other direction, and I believe his edit history speaks to that. Girolamo Savonarola 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I did find it very odd that someone is thinking IMDB is actually evidence that the premiere and release in the UK did not retain the original French title, however! Ah well. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)