User talk:Arne Eickenberg

Arne Eickenberg

Current talk page

Archive 1

Classics articles

Perhaps what we can do, to get the classics articles approved, is to do some recruiting from classics mailing lists? There is one very big classics group, I forget what it is. --Larry Sanger 21:45, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

If this will serve a general purpose too, it would be fine with me. But no rush just for a few small articles. :-) —Arne Eickenberg 03:01, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Image:Augustus_Capricorn_SidusIulium.jpg

Thanks, perfectly done. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:31, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Image:Gruenewald_IsenheimAltarpiece_Crucifixion.jpg

Arne, would you kindly see my note on the image page?  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 21:08, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I added two links to the image's talk page, one commenting on the GFDL release of the image library by directmedia, the publisher of the printed offline-Wikipedia (see also here, the other one with a footnote mentioning the GFDL status. —Arne Eickenberg 21:50, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Nicene Creed

Hello Arne,

You replaced "The original version promulgated at that time (from Epistola Eusebii, circa 350 A.D.)"

With

"The second version promulgated at that time (from Epistola Eusebii, circa AD 350)"

Do you have a source? --Thomas Simmons 00:52, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Just saw the revert. LOL Never mind. --Thomas Simmons 00:54, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

And the Crux Orthodoxa in the Orthodox article, very nice.--Thomas Simmons 00:59, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Caesar

I know it's a bit insular :-) , and I don't want to sound exclusionary, but this article seems to be about etymology more than anything else. Modern linguistics is radically different from pre-1950s study. Today, it's more about the study of patterns in language,and how these are represented in the mind, rather than the history of words.

Also, the problem here is that we don't have enough workgroups to distinguish the modern social science of linguistics from language study generally. And I realise you might be thinking about the Arne (name) article. But I think that lots of workgroups can cover language generally, rather than linguistics. John Stephenson 10:04, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

No problem. In essence, classical philology and etymology do belong to the "Classics" workgroup. So we have to acquire CZ authors/editors who also now a bit about these topics. :-)  Arne Eickenberg  talk 10:13, 12 August 2007 (CDT) note: original post here

Germany

Arne, Sie sind ein bisschen German, aren't you? I started a page on Germany because it was one of the most-linked-to dead links. It really needs the eye of someone who's actually a citizen. Danke, John. John Stephenson 10:26, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Theodor Lohmann: Check Translation?

Arne, Along these same line ( deutch sprechen), I have a favor to ask: I've recently posted a translation I did of a brief biographical item on Theodor Lohmann, #2 to Bismarck in the 19th century development of the German social insurance system. (We share a common surname, but are no relation to my knowledge. See my comments on this on my talk page.) My German is somewhat shaky, and I am wondering if you would be willing to look over the translation and compare it with the original German Wikipedia article - which as far as I know is quite accurate - to see if I made any serious mistakes in the translation. Steve Ewen suggested you might be willing to do this.Ob Sie kanne oder nicht, vielen danke! Roger Lohmann 06:56, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

I answered on your talk page. We should deal with the article content and translations there and/or the article's talk page. Greetz.  Arne Eickenberg  talk 09:14, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Gaius Iulius Caesar (name)

Approved!!! Sorry that took so long.. I dropped the ball (oops). Give me another one! --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:27, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Jake the Explainer

Arne, I'm not quite sure what you were thinking of with Jake the Explainer, but it was posted for speedy deletion, and those who did so were quite right. This concept (not the artistic practice, but the name and specific conceptualization of the practice) seems to be your own original invention, or if not, then one that has virtually no currency at all. Anyway, the article now lives at CZ:Cold Storage/Jake the Explainer.

By the way, where have you gone? I enjoyed your contributions when you were here. --Larry Sanger 19:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. Larry the Editor)

Hi Larry, I'm still around and will surely return as an author in the future. I'm currently working on a lot of other projects, including my thesis, so it'll be some time before I return. Probably in 2009, though. By the way: the industry term Jake the Explainer was coined long before the internet arrived, which is probably why you don't find it on the web. Modern derivatives (which one does find) are e.g. the Morris & Sam. I took the term from the book Screenwriting Tricks of the Trade by William Froug, Emmy-winning writer/producer, producer of the year 1956 (Prod. Guild of America), recipient of the Writes Guild Valentine Davies Award 1987, professor emeritus (UCLA), founder of the UCLA Film & TV Writing Program, author of several books of screenwriting. So, it's definitely not my own invention. ;-)  Arne Eickenberg  talk 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict! While you were writing the above, I was writing this:

Some more careful searching--searching on "Sam the Explainer" and "Morris the Explainer" too--shows basically that the concept is definitely not your invention (sorry for suggesting otherwise). The article you wrote lacked adequate sourcing, and the concept and names are certainly obscure, but neither of these was a reason to delete it. So...I'm about to undo my work (and Chris') and let the community discuss this before taking any further action. --Larry Sanger 20:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Jake the Explainer for more. --Larry Sanger 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the rash of deletions on my part. I saw the deletion and move to cold storage so thought a general clean up of the subpages would make sense too. Please excuse the trigger finger. Chris Day 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. :-)  Arne Eickenberg  talk 21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My compliments on Carotta

Being Dutch and being a former colleague of Anton van Hooff (same university, different departments), I read with great pleasure your section about "Dutch Controversy" in the article on Carotta. I also read several of the Dutch articles that you link to, very interesting! I get the impression that Van Hooff's attacks are unscientific, he should be able to come up with better arguments. When you need help with interpreting/translating some of the Dutch sources let me know; I'm glad to be of assistance. --Paul Wormer 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. To be honest, I want this article to be neutral, fair and balanced. A slight problem at the moment concerning the Dutch debate is that there are no direct sources for the arguments made by the other "anti-Carottist" commentators. If you know any source for those quotes, I would be much obliged. At the moment I can only refer to them as tertiary and unsourced in a footnote, which makes the article look biased at that point. In any case, thanks for your kind offer. PS: It's always funny, how small the world is. ;) Van Hooff is no stranger to me. The tragic component here is that according to people close to him he is only attacking Carotta to get back at Cliteur and van Friesland, ex-journalists from the Buitenhof political TV format. (But I can't use that in the article; there is no independent source.) Seen from another viewpoint, van Hooff has the bravery to at least try a refutation. Many other reviewers (among them scholars) don't really dig into the subject. They never read the book, only about the book, but still say it's nonsense. That's not very scientific. Van Hooff seems to be different, at least in part, although I don't know whether he has really read the full research report. —Arne Eickenberg 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with mp3 upload

Hi Arne,

I want to be sure I understand the problems you are having uploading mp3 files larger than 2 MB. Firstly, according to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Images there is a 2MB limit on image upload. While you are uploading an audio file, not an image file, I suspect this limit applies to all uploaded files regardless of format. So, you want to increase the maximum size for an uploaded file. Do you have any limit in mind?

Secondly, there is no template for audio files. You mention that you could use the {{Image}} template, but this seems strange since the file is an audio file. You would prefer to use <mp3>FILENAME.mp3</mp3>, is this correct? Just so I understand, were you able to use the {{Image}} template for the 2 MB audio files you uploaded?

Thanks, Dan Nessett 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan, thanks for the reply. (1) The upload page currently states:"Maximum file size: 50 MB / Permitted file types: png, gif, jpg, jpeg, ogg, svg, mp3, ogg." So that's probably the cause for my confusion. If the limit is 2MB, everything's fine. I can live with 2MB. I just thought the limit was 50MB (cf. here). (2) No template: okay (v.i, 4). (3) On the image template: I apparently confused the {{Image|…}} template with the standard [[Image:…]] code. The latter is possible with audio files, but it neither embeds them nor leads directly to the audio file. That's why I'm using direct URLs at them moment here. (4) The solution for audio files would either be a template like the "Listen" template at WP or markup like <mp3>FILENAME.mp3</mp3>. It doesn't really matter much how it is implemented. The only thing important for me is to be able to directly embed the audio files as streaming audio on an article page, including some form of player, with play, pause, stop etc. —Arne Eickenberg 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the extension necessary to play mp3 files is not installed on CZ. So, I have added bug 3, which is an enhancement request for this extension. While we are at it, the extension for using ogg files is also not installed. Do you foresee any need for audio files in this format? If so, would you add an enhancement request for it on bugzilla? Thanks. Dan Nessett 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers ogg files, because there are no licenses/patents involved. But the MP3 license is only connected to the creation of the file, i.e. the encoding process, the use of the algorithm. It has no effect on the later use of the file. WP founder Wales wrote: "The policy is that we must avoid file formats that can not be used by legal free software." But MP3 can be used by free software. QuickTime for example is free of charge. Furthermore, MP3 encoding is possible with freeware libraries such as LAME. So I don't really understand WP policy here, and Wales' reasoning was surely erroneous. At the moment I think that mp3 will do fine. The only problem is its lower quality, compared to other formats, but with the 2MB limit in place, this is a moot argument anyway. If the limit is one day raised, then it would be interesting to talk about other formats again. AAC comes to mind for example. —Arne Eickenberg 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ON SECOND THOUGHT: There are already a lot of ogg files on Wikipedia, which are either public domain or added under fair use. So I guess it would be okay to implement an ogg extension at CZ too, so we can transfer files, when needed, without converting them to mp3. —Arne Eickenberg 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)