User:Raul654/archive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Spoo FAR[edit]

Hi Raul. I wonder if you might comment on this dead-locked review: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Spoo. There are good editors on either side of the fence and I have two contrary thoughts. One, USENET postings are obviously not the stuff of FAs, including our best pop cult articles; Punctured Bicycle has outlined clear problems. On the other hand, I know Spoo has become the canonical example of IAR wrt FAs—if they didn't use those sources then they wouldn't have an article. Would it pass FAC today? Marskell 13:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it shortly (next day or so). Raul654 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
With regard to Usenet - What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article [1]. I this case, the posting were unquestionably made by the series creator, and since I'm fairly sure usenet postings are immutable, I see no reason why they cannot be taken as a reliable primary source. I'm more conerned about the in-universe veruss out-of-Universe criticisms. I briefly re-read the article, and the commodity section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoo#Commodity) seems to have issues, but beyond that, I didn't really find any. Raul654 16:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What criterion do we use to determine when "postings [are] unquestionably made by" someone, considering how easily anyone can be anyone on the internet? I'm asking with regard to my Oppose of the Yahoo source at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carnivàle. How do we determine that someone really is unquestionably who someone else says they are? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Babylon 5's use of the Internet - one of the reasons the show was so revolutionary was it was one of the first (and only?) to make extensive use of fan feedback from the Internet into the show. There is no question that those comments came from JMS. Raul654 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what to do about Carnivale, though; I'm going to be traveling next week, so might not be able to strike Opposes that get resolved, and in that case, I think you have to subscribe to even see the Yahoo postings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've closed the nomination - nobody had edited it in 2 or 3 days, and most of the objections revolved around the reliability of JMS's usenet postings, which (as I said above) I consider a non-issue. Raul654 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It got kinda goofed up because you filed it in the August archive rather than September and did part of the botification (Gimmetrow has been keeping up lately). Normally, all you have to do on a Keep is move it to the current month archive and GimmeBot does the rest; if it's a Remove, you also have to add it to FFA, remove it from FA, and change the tallies. Rather than have another chef in the kitchen, I left Gimmetrow a note asking him to finish the botification and move it back to the September archive. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Doh - I tried to get it all done correctly by hand so he wouldn't have to be bothered :( -- we have sure made closing these things complicated. Raul654 18:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ya, with a keep, just throw it in the archive and the bot'll come along and do the rest.
I had been leaning in the direction you outline Raul, but then WP:V mentions USENET for a reason. While I believe the creator posted details on USENET (having heard so from reliable Wikipedians) I would still like a reliable source stating that "everybody knows" as much as a covering source. Marskell 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, like I said above - Babylon 5's use of the Internet - we have an entire article on it. http://www.jmsnews.com/ is a website devoted to collecting such postings. Raul654 19:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Makes me nervous, too (maybe because I've been forged on UseNet—it's not hard to munge a header and look like someone else. Not saying that happened here, but the notion leaves me uneasy ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
All I was hoping for was a couple of refs like this—an independent source verifying that that he posted there. Unfortunately, the domain of the jmsnews publisher seems dead so that won't do, but I can add a covering note with tv.com and perhaps this (MIT, no less). Marskell 07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. That answers my main concern.
An unrelated note: Nude celebrities on the Internet just doesn't want to die. Marskell 08:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the review focused so much on the reliability of USENET postings, which I too consider a non-issue. As I see it, the issue is whether spoo deserves an article at all. There is not even one secondary source, such as a news or magazine article, that indicates this is a notable topic. Moreover, Jimbo Wales himself has cited spoo as a good example of original research—Wikipedians stitching together USENET postings from the show's creator, with no editorial oversight from a reputable publisher, and giving undue weight to a trivial topic. As Jay32183 said in the review, there is a potentially strong case against this article if it were taken to AFD. Should it be? Punctured Bicycle 06:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

I noticed that you recently had to block this editor for troublemaking, and wanted to get your take on this little threat. Dreadstar 16:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And another one Dreadstar 09:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Request some moderation[edit]

SandyGeorgia seems to have it in her mind that checkmarks and tallies of the current status of a nomination within the nomination itself are reasons to oppose an article. This is causing problems. I realize I may be the sole force against her, but her comments are quickly becoming disruptive and pointy. Some clear guidance (are they or are they not allowed) would be extremely useful. I am willing to acquiesce to your decision, but this is quickly getting out of hand! — BQZip01 — talk 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry some of the places where this is a problem are (mind you this is only the articles of which I am aware and just those in the past few hours):
Thanks for your help! — BQZip01 — talk 08:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • ... and tallies of the current status of a nomination within the nomination itself are reasons to oppose an article ... . Interesting, but incorrect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Oppose...77KB FAC with lots of checkmarks and a tally box;" Your words, not mine. — BQZip01 — talk 19:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A classic example of the problem is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK) (although it will likely change by the time you get to look at it, Raul). The tally box presents me as an Oppose when I haven't opposed, and represents that the "problem is solved" although I've revisited the article three times now, and the problem isn't resolved. These boxes are more trouble than they're worth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, this sounds like something you could easily fix yourself (there's an edit button in the upper middle of your screen...) — BQZip01 — talk

I think anytime you have one person attempting to characterize another's objections, there's a good chance that mischaracterization or misunderstanding will occur. The purpose of me restarting FACs is to clear the board and start fresh (and I'm OK with people copying back in still-unresolved objections). But it makes reading the nom a heck of a lot easier. If someone has an alternative way to do that, I'm all ears. Raul654 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the Hidden template (mentioned) It could be used for long discussions...we could also use some sort of chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA query[edit]

Hey Raul. How does Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests work? If I posted a request and it garnered no response does that mean it is acceptable and will be scheduled eventually, or is that a no go? Just curious, I realize there is probably quite the backlog. IvoShandor 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)__

Non-free image[edit]

I've removed the copyright image from Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 1, 2007 [2] Feel free to revert my edit, if you feel they were erroneous. Cheers. --DarkFalls talk 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Robson FAC[edit]

How will you handle this, as one contributer has filled the page with masses of fine detail issues, some of which are extremely subjective, without leaving a support or object opinion at the end of it. Will you just ignore that section, or will it automatically fail if they don't return with a "support"? --Dweller 11:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Bruno Maddox FAC[edit]

Raul, do you mind leaving the Bruno Maddox article open at FAC for another week? It hasn't really run its course and it has been extensively copyedited. It only recently received a single Oppose which has been addressed.-BillDeanCarter 17:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put it back on the FAC for now, but I am not going to promise to leave it there for a full week. Raul654 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll see if I can get more of a consensus one way or the other.-BillDeanCarter 18:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Date request question[edit]

Is it too late to request September 27? I know I cannot request anything anyway, since there are already 5 requests up, but it mentioned something about 30 days notice. You just passed Pilot (Smallville) and, as I noted on the requests for front page, my intention was to hopefully get it FA (which it did) in time for the new season's premiere date. Is there no chance of that since it is technically less than 30 days?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The 30 day thing is an upper limit to requests - requests cannot be made for dates more than 30 days in advance. The lower limit is that I don't want to reschedule any dates I've already set. Raul654 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
OOOOh, I must have misread it. Thanks for the clarification. I guess I have plenty of time to let the schedule clear. Happy holiday.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty annoyed[edit]

Can you take a look at this. Why was the article failed? I really think that they article should not of been failed, and feel the decision was badly made. Having seven hours to improve the article from one comment is too little, and seeing as I completed the other comments, just why couldn't it of been passed? Anyway can you overturn the decision? Note: I've started a discussion on WP:F1 talkpage about this decision, see here. Davnel03 18:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(1) Why was the article failed? - because it had no support and multiple outstanding objections, and had been on the FAC continuously for since the beginning of July (2) Why couldn't it of been passed? - I already told you why Raul654 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, I changed what needed to be changed, so it's not my fault people wouldn't change there decision, is it? As for the second point, well that's out of my control. Davnel03 07:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Not Raul's fault either so don't take it out on him. I wouldn't get too annoyed mate, you can renomminate any time you like and if and when you do alert users who worked on the article to give feedback. Buc 05:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot[edit]

Raul, I am not questioning your motives, only letting you know what I am perceiving: SandyGeorgia's comments are being given undue weight. You have deleted nearly 40 hours of my work for no apparent reason other than SandyGeorgia came to your talk page whining about "I don't like long reviews...". I have no problem doing some other form of review, BUT IAW the given policies, everything has been done above-board and in the open. I respectfully request an explanation or clarification as to why you feel it is necessary to delete this much work?! Again, I am not questioning your motives, but my perception of the situation is that you are giving favoritism to certain editors and deleting work for no reason. I truly hope I am wrong on this matter and that an amicable explanation is forthcoming. — BQZip01 — talk 19:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BQZ, the boxes are a bad idea. Nobody gets paid for bringing an article to FAC, of course, so there's no real WP:COI involved, but it's obviously senseless to have the person nominating simultaneously deciding whether objections have been met. The people who have objected decide if their own objections are met--and if they don't show up again, Raul decides. No good process conflates the nominating person with the person deciding on progress made. Marskell 20:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the boxes (see below) and I never said there was a conflict of interest. — BQZip01 — talk 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It would help if you would actually tell me what you are talking about. I restarted three FACs - all of them were old, long, difficult to understand, with many stricken objections and some not. The purpose of restarting it to clear the board, and allow only objections that apply to the current version of the article. Feel free to copy any older un-addressed objections into the restarted nomination. Raul654 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Raul,
  1. I am glad I was wrong and I apologize for the above comments.
  2. I honestly feel that this is not the way to handle FACs. Two of the three were ones I worked on. The Longhorns discussion was still completely active.
  3. In addition, that the reviews are long seems to be a problem with the process, not contributors. I put a LOT of work into this (as has JohnTex). Almost all of my objections that were not crossed out were still active and I was actively clearing them.
  4. By clearing the entire discussion, you removed all support AND opposition for the article. It also cleared information that was accomplished prior to the clearing. In the future, to increase clarity, I think you should put extended discussions in collapsible boxes (Template:Hidden) and note in the instructions that people should do the same when holding an extended discussion.
Again, PLEASE visit the talk page for FAC nominee problems. Clarification as to when/why discussions will simply be deleted and everyone just has to start over should be made explicitly clear so the situations can be avoided. As is currently stands, it sounds like "well, that one is pretty long. They need to start over because I am arbitrarily blanking the page." To me, that discounts all of the discussions that preceded and leads to unnecessary re-discussions.
— BQZip01 — talk 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"I restarted three FACs - all of them were old..." the 2005 one was started not more than 2 weeks ago and was actively being posted
"...difficult to understand..." How so?
"...with many stricken objections and some not..." Isn't that the way we are supposed to do these? I would really like some clarification (my talk page is fine, here is fine, the FAC talk page, I really don't care. PLEASE provide some guidance). — BQZip01 — talk 18:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Raul?! Why on earth did you promote Georgetown University after only FIVE days!!! (most of them over a long weekend!?! I NEVER had an opportunity to post my problems with it since you restarted the discussion. I really would like some sort of explanation. I had legitimate complaints that were not addressed; you blanked them and then fast-tracked it to FA status. EVERYTHING I did was IAW the way we were supposed to do things, yet you and Sandy seem to have a problem with it. Why? You still haven't answered that. This alleged "problem" in the way I do reviews seems to be a personal issue, but no guidance seems to be forthcoming. Why? I realize you are busy, but this is ridiculous, IMHO. This is incredibly discouraging. I do a thorough and specific review and you seem to say, "wow. that's too much to read. I think I'll just delete it all." Please explain!!! — BQZip01 — talk 15:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, please calm down, BQZ. --Dweller 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Dweller, I am calm, but frustrated. There is no guidance on length, what are appropriate comments, the specificity of comments, etc. I have requested specific guidance for the past 3 weeks and none is forthcoming. Raul's chief objection seems to be "well, I found it confusing", but offers no suggestions as to how to fix/prevent it in the future. I STILL am waiting for a response on this. — BQZip01 — talk 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this thread is still active. 5 days is the minimum standard amount of time I leave something on the FAC. (4 if the FAC is particularly swamped) But after it's been there 5 days, it's perfectly acceptable for me to promote or archive it. As far as restarting FACs, that's a very subjective thing for which no hard and fast rules exist; as I said earlier, 'it confuses me' is the most common reason for me restarting one. The purpose is to wipe the slate clean. I have no problem with people copying older, still-extant objections into the restarted FAC nom, as long as they don't copy the ones that have been fixed. Oh, as far as specificity of comments - some people think that long line-by-line reviews of an article should be made on the article's talk page and linked from the FAC nom. I don't think this is necessary, provided that the person is diligent in striking through/using a template to hide the ones that have been fixed. Raul654 06:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Raul, Thank you so very much for responding and clarifying. Sorry if I've been a bit of an ass lately. I have a ten-day-old (on top of my 2 year old) and I'm not getting much sleep lately. — BQZip01 — talk 07:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Boxes[edit]

If you will look carefully at ANY of the "boxes" I have done, they are merely a summary of the actions so far. Whether or not objections have been adequately fixed is up to the reviewer and I have NEVER attempted to summarize otherwise. — BQZip01 — talk 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I also support the boxes. So long as the person who makes the box does not put words in people's mouths, they are a helpful summary of what has happened. Johntex\talk 02:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think boxes have potential, if they are used properly. I'm witholding judgement until I get more evidence. Raul654 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

FA to FFA to AFD[edit]

Raul, not sure if you need to follow Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles#Nude celebrities about Nude celebrities on the Internet; since it's a first, there might be tricky bot and script issues to consider. Even though it was AFD'd, I can imagine difficulties resulting from losing the articlehistory on the talk page, but I'm waiting to hear from Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored and fully protected the talk page. If that seems remiss feel free to undo. Marskell 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur - regardless of whether or not the article is deleted, the talk page should remain intact. Raul654 06:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Greg Giraldo[edit]

I put a call in to his manager, so let's see if that gets us anything. I over-booked my Tuesday. Manning Marable at 1:00, Norman Dorsen at 2:30. To think, I have a full-time job that pays the rent. --David Shankbone 18:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's interesting to note I do not get any responses from ideological conservatives, and I'm desperate to do a few. --David Shankbone 18:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That is interesting. Could it be because conservatives are on the whole, distrustful of "communist" ideas like the Free culture movement, and/or of technology and the internet in general? Raul654 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How did you get the behind the scenes access (e.g, having managers numbers and whatnot) to get these photos? Raul654 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • So many different ways. I've begun to write a WikiEssay on how to do it so that others can know how to do what I do; anyone can do what I do. It's very Wiki that way :-) --David Shankbone 18:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Flagging a non-specific date request for a unique FA[edit]

Hi Raul, Amanita phalloides is the first (and so far only) fungus FA - in the northern hemisphere it fruits in the summer and autumn, which is now till october-ish I guess, and so would be cool to get on the mainpage while in season. However, there is no particular day that is warranted. I keep trying to put on a day request but am constantly beaten to the 5th slot..but as a day isn't an issue wasn't sure where to leave it. (I've hada couple on the mainpage but this one is kinda different :) ) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'll see what I can do. Raul654 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's scheduled for the 13th. Raul654 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page requests[edit]

Did you see these? On the request page. No problem if you don't want to add them. Just want to be sure you've seen them.

Buc 19:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the requests. I decided not to use them - instead, I've decided to spend a week (or maybe more) running quirky featured articles :) Raul654 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How about having France national rugby union team on September 16 when they play there second game? Buc 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

This is a question for my own personal knowledge. Do you know or have any idea how many "hits" the main page receive per day? I'm just courious. Tony the Marine 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a large number - tens of millions, I think. I've just emailed the right people asking for a more precise number. Raul654 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't gotten a response on this. Raul654 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality film[edit]

I did a lot of research on this article and wrote it from scratch. Would you want to tell me what you think? --David Shankbone 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A good article. It could due with a mention of Borat, which is probably the highest grossing reality film of all time. (Borat himself not withstanding the 'reality' part) Raul654 02:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A picture for the TFA blurb of The Bus Uncle[edit]

Suggested screenshot. Hi, I'm pleased that you have chosen The Bus Uncle to appear on the main page on September 7, but I noticed there is no image on its blurb. May I suggest you include the screenshot on the top of the article as the image? Cheers.--Alasdair 02:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The current image is not related to the incident at all. In order to allow the readers to get the point immediately, I suggest you use the screenshot to the right.--Alasdair 12:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That image cannot be used because it is copyrtighted. –thedemonhog talkeditsbox 04:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That is not true. Fair use images have been used on the Main Page and still can be. To use an unrelated image is to do a dis-service to our readers. We should use a fair use image in a case like this. Johntex\talk 02:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Cranmer[edit]

Is this close? Or should I just pull it and send it GA? -- SECisek 07:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither, I've restarted the nomination. It's a clean slate - a virgin FAC nomination. It's what I do with long FAC nominations with many crossed out sections that are difficult to makes head or tails of. Raul654 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good, thank you for all your hard work here. -- SECisek 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes[edit]

I agree with you restarting the nomination to clear up the editing recommendations etc., and for that, I thank you. However, there were two instances of support 'buried' within the garble of recommendations for improvement. Should they be copied and pasted on the new nomination, or left as they are? Cheers, and good luck with your work, --Bulleid Pacific 11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, generally I don't think supports should be carried over. Raul654 01:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Essjay[edit]

That's probably a good idea. A lot of people were treating it like an AfD and my net access is too patchy at the moment (I swear, in technological terms Bradford is like twenty years behind) to have done the FAC full justice. I'll work through the feedback when they sort out my connection and I'll resubmit it when I've finished. Thanks very much for letting me know. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

Hey Raul, hope you're well. I'm writing to you to express my concern over featured articles on the main page. Some of the recently featured articles, for example John Millington Synge and thou, do not appear to be upto scratch. I was just wondering if, when selecting which articles appear on the main page, you read them and make sure that they're still of sufficient quality to warrant featured status. If not perhaps it would be beneficial to refer them to WP:FAR, before placing them on the main page, any thoughts? Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.182.217 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I write the summary that appears on the main page, so yes, I read the intro for every article that appears. I don't read them all in their entirety though. With that said, I'm fully aware that there is non-uniformity in the quality of the articles that go up - that is, some articles are better than others. This is a result of the gradually increasing expectations for what constitutes a featured article. Featured articles promoted back in 2004 or 2005 may not be as good as the ones we are promoting nowadays. With that said, though, when scheduling main page articles, I don't make any effort to distinguish older FAs from newer ones. I consider them all to be eligible main-page, and let the FAR take care of ones that aren't up to snuff. (Note: "All" of them excludes ones that have already appeared on the main page, and a very small handful that I'm not quite comfortable putting up because of their subject matter.) I should also note that thou was promoted in 2004, went through FAR, and was substantially improved. Raul654 07:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

House demolition[edit]

Hi, re your edit to house demolition, I had been given to understand, from articles and edits that I've seen around the site, that articles of particularly strong significance to another issue can and should be linked at the top of that other issue's page. Am I wrong? What are the guidelines on this, I can't find a relevant article on policy?Nwe 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambigution and pages with nearly identical names (which could reasonably be confused with an article) go at the top. See-alsos do not. The preferred way of linking these is from within the article text. If that isn't done or is not possible, then they should be linked from a see-also section, as Isarig said. Raul654 17:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, forgive me if I was disinclined to believe that Isarig's edits were made on the basis of wikipedia policy. From my point of view, the Israel-Palestine page counts as nearly identical as the the page on by far the most notable example of this subject.Nwe 10:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment requested[edit]

I have analyzed the FAC of Orion (mythology) at the FAC talk page, if you care to look in. I am somewhat dismayed by Epbr123's attitude that the regulars are entitled, perhaps required, to educate the rest of Wikipedia. (I would have more confidence in his instruction if he had not expressed confusion at the technical terms of grammar later in the conversation; also if his comments on the article had not demanded a patently ungrammatical "correction".) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Directorship and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TonyTheTiger_3[edit]

Hi Mark,

A number of users opposed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TonyTheTiger_3 based on his claim of directorship of WP:CHICAGO. I did not realise that we have directors here and I'm wondering how the process works. What do you consider essential in a director? How does one balance it all? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for any project with a large and diverse group of participants, I have learned that the absolute most important characteristic one must posses is a temperance of the tongue. That is, the ability to speak honestly to people - and particularly to disagree with them - while at the same time not offending them.
As I see it, there are two big components to this - giving people a fair shake, and explaining your reasoning. Giving people a fair shake means that they come away from a discussion knowing that their concerns have been listed to, even if they didn't get their way. The second part, closely related to the first, is the ability for the director to explain his decision-making process, which gives the decision-making process transparency.
How does one balance it all? well, I can only speak for myself on this, but with all the hats I wear, it can be particularly difficult to find the time to do them all. Tony has an advantage on me in this area - he can concentrate his efforts in one area far better than I can. Raul654 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology[edit]

Thanks for fixing the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talkcontribs) 03:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 03:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Empires[edit]

Would anyone like to comment on this? --Joopercoopers 11:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage nominations[edit]

Hi. I've been thinking about how this works. Currently, I don't think it does; the evidence is the huge wadge of articles on the nom page, many of which have languished there for months on end. I could be wrong, but I think you're also unhappy with it, although you're clearly prepared to work with the status quo as a flawed system.

I read your thoughts on it and wondered if I could help with devising a methodology that a) better meets your needs b) better achieves the aims you state and c) is more transparent

Are you interested? I thought we could work in user space - at least initially, because while we feel our way towards how your needs could be met by the proposal, it'll be easier to work on this without collaboration from others, unless invited.

What do you think? --Dweller 11:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the requests page is broken. I've basically stopped paying attention to everything except the 5 nomination spots. It was becoming difficult to maintain when it had 60 articles; now with 160, I don't even bother. I'm not happy with the requests system at the top of the page because it seems like the it's the same 2 or 3 people monopolizing that section (perhaps a rule that you cannot request more than one article at a time, or no more than one per month?), and most of the requests aren't all that... meaningful (for lack of a better word). Raul654 00:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a limit on the number of articles you can nominate (1 at a time) and limit nominations to the upcoming XX days? This would force maintenance of these articles (some of whom have had their main images deleted). — BQZip01 — talk 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, how about the fact that you have to nominate for a specific date? This way you can have a choice of articles for that date and then, once you've chosen one, it is removed? This would minimize the list and keep the articles up-to-date. — BQZip01 — talk 03:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about at the top of the page (the requests section) or the huge, unmanageable blob is the bottom of the page? Raul654 07:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am talking about merging the two and shrinking the overall size of the list at the same time. — BQZip01 — talk 00:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work with you on a clean start, say at User:Raul654/Main Page nominations. Happy for you to invite anyone you like to work on it; but my thinking is that at first, your input shouldn't be diluted, until we've got a good steer of the direction you'd like it to take. --Dweller 14:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ordinances of 1311[edit]

Why didn't I get a star? I want a star! Lampman 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone's just done it for you; traditionally nominators get to do it themselves after Raul promotes. Once you see it on the featured articles list, you can edit it to add {{featured article}} at the end. That's what adds the star. (I had the same question when I first got an FA.) Mike Christie (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
In the words of Jennifer Lopez: "Now I can breathe again, baby now I can breathe again". It was just kinda counter-intuitive that the star should go at the bottom, conisdering that it appears at the top... Lampman 22:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As Mike says, it's tradition for the nominators to do it, because I hate template:featured article and want no part of it except to see it deleted ;) Raul654 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cunningham[edit]

Just a rather crazy question. Officially is this your nomination of the article or is it mine? I ask because i remember coming across a list somewhere. Thanks. Woodym555 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with the new FAC so expeditiously and for renominating it in the first place. Many editors would not have reviewed the decision and would have said my decision is final. In case you didn't already know the list is Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Looking at the list made me think. As a question, if you had the time to get an article up to FAC (which, given your long list of jobs is unlikely, I know ;) would you submit it to FAC? If so, who would promote it? Thanks again. Woodym555 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I've written 10 featured articles of my own (Rick, who maintains that list, knows to exclude restarts from my count). Yes, I submit them to FAC, and I promote them myself. Raul654 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
After i posted my comment here i found the list and read through the talk page. I read that the restarts are removed there. Thinking about it must have already known about the list due to your comments on the talk page (doh!!) I suppose if it meets the criteria, it meets the criteria, and no-one knows the criteria better than you!! :) Thanks again for your help and keep up the good work! Woodym555 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Frederic Chopin table of contents[edit]

Is there a reason why you moved the TOC from where I put it so as to make it more conveniently available to readers, at the start of the article, and so as to get rid of a huge blank space between the lead and the body of the article? Nihil novi 22:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, left-sided tables of contents are really, really awful. It should be avoided unless there is a very good reason to override the default. Raul654 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that a TOC that is separated from an article's beginning — by a huge blank space — is much worse. In a book, a TOC appears right after the title page, not after the introduction or the first chapter! Nihil novi 23:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Alison Bechdel pic[edit]

Sadly, I haven't heard anything back from the photographer. I emailed her on Monday, Sept. 3, but she hasn't responded. That's actually why I hadn't put a formal request for the article being put on TFA, since we didn't have any images which were unambiguously freely licensed. (Of course, my personal view is that there's nothing wrong with having a fair-use or non-commercial-use-only image on the front page, since the front page isn't used by downstream users, but I accept that the prevailing winds are against me on that front.)

I'm delighted that the article will be on the front page, though, whether we have an image or not. Who knows — perhaps the presence of a high-quality TFA with no fair use images might provoke some users to speak up against the "free images only" crowd. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fightin' Texas Aggie Band[edit]

Raul, is there any chance we can change the pict used for the Aggie band on Today's featured article? I would like to use Image:Continuous Countermarch.jpg instead as the previous image only shows a small portion of the band from the back? This one provides an overview shot with more detail and complexity with variation in instrumentation. This pict is included in the article already. I'll be happy to do the legwork on this one, just let me know on my talk page what I need to do. Thanks & Gig 'em :-) — BQZip01 — talk 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have noted that it is scheduled to be featured on 11 September 2007, so time is a big factor here. — BQZip01 — talk 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 05:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Outstanding!!! I don't care what all the other editors say about you...you're all right in my book! — BQZip01 — talk 06:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
...what all the other editors say about me? Raul654 06:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a joke on an early Sunday morning. I'm pretty happy and slightly tipsy as I am celebrating my Aggies winning in 3OT over Fresno State. BE HAPPY! — BQZip01 — talk 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


What?[edit]

Why did you add an obvious hoax to Wikipedia? Academic Challenger 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not a hoax - http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nma_cont.php?vsep=93&gen=edition&p1=11&l=1 Raul654 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a hoax: [3] for the article on the German wiki. Antandrus (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I forgive you, Academic Challenger. It's very easy to mistake it for one. I do have a new goal for next april fools, though. Raul654 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand. You can repost the article with sources. It definitely is the best new article ever. Academic Challenger 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On September 12, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lick Me in the Ass, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

heh. lol.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm greatly amused :) Raul654 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Downfall[edit]

I don't have a handy reference, but I have seen language cited in one or two places as the main reason why MacArthur didn't want Indian Army units. I think it makes sense; the vast majority of the Indian troops would not have been native English speakers. I think "racism" is nonsense, after all MacArthur was commander of the Philippine Army when the war started and had African American units in the SW Pacific. Grant | Talk 22:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank's Downfall specifically mentions language. I think the racism claim is bogus too. Raul654 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Ceiling Cat[edit]

You ought to "watch" that page too you know :) -- Cat chi? 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

need your help[edit]

I maybe violated a policy by my choice of the first username, but I was angry, because I saw you deleted two revisions of El Hormiguero. My initial name was Raul654Censored. I got indef banned without any talk, I choose a new name, indef again, I choose a new name, less controversial, I had to! I was not aware that the initial name was a policy violation.

I tried to improve the sockpuppet report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RaulAndHorstCensored I added one more name and indicated that that one was the initial.

see [4]

Please help me! You have power, you can fix this! Why is there no place to talk??? This is ridiculous. Because I did choose a wrong username, WP admins are going to bann me from WP for all my life???

I even helped to reveal another name. I also went to WP:RM, so they can fix this. Please, see, I made controversial edits, but the accusation of vandalism is absolutly wrong. Xy209 16:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

see also "Not only are new accounts continuing the pattern, but they're becoming increasingly abrasive in their edits, e.g. referring to "ignorant admins" in an edit summary. [4] —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)" - the admins were ignorant, i.e. ignoring that the initial user one was the one I indicated. And why "but they're becoming increasingly abrasive in their edits, e.g." - what is abrasive here? This is a witch hunt. I did not continue the pattern, I did only contribute to the sockpuppet page. Xy209 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You may continue using your current username (Xy209). Raul654 01:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Raul, thank you. Hopefully the admins will not hunt me any more. Xy209 19:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're name[edit]

I was reading recent changes around a hour ago, and I was wondering about you're name. Is it pronounced like Rahul, or is it Rawl? Just a curious question. And what's with the 654? You don't have to answer that part, it's just random... Yamakiri on Firefox 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx thanks:[edit]

I don't know if you got my previous thanks messages, so I'll thank you again for putting Archie on the main page. Seriously, you do a wonderful job and I don't know how Wikipedia could cope without you. Anyway, just thought I'd drop by and thank you for your hardwork. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad I could give you the spotlight for a day Raul654 04:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You really are a legend man. :) Spawn Man 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away![edit]

Marlith T/C 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's creepy... I was just listening to the 9th symphony when this popped up. Raul654 04:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. On this day of sadness, let us spread the joy. Marlith T/C 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed the point - Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away! are lyrics from the (englicized version of the) ode to joy, which is part of the symphony. Raul654 05:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominations page[edit]

Repost: I'd be happy to work with you on a clean start, say at User:Raul654/Main Page nominations. Happy for you to invite anyone you like to work on it; but my thinking is that at first, your input shouldn't be diluted, until we've got a good steer of the direction you'd like it to take. --Dweller 14:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Waddaya fink? --Dweller 07:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
See below, "TFA Requests: "Outside the box" thinking" Raul654 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Community images[edit]

I was reading Wikipedia:Licensing for community images, and I wondered whether you would be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Community pictures? Carcharoth 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an idea two years too late. The horses have already left the barn. Raul654 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And are halfway across the field... :-) Thanks for looking, anyway. Carcharoth 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta[edit]

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list --Cspurrier 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thou[edit]

One of the points brought up today on the talk page for today's featured article, Thou, is that this article does not meet FA standards because it is part of Articles that may contain original research, has various stylistic problems, is not well-referenced, and is not (though this is not always necessary) visually appealing. While I am not a large contributor to WP:FAC, I do not believe that this article represents "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." I cannot put the page on WP:FAR because it is currently the main page FA. If I were to give the page an overhaul, even a section of it, it would be reverted. I am asking your advice as to what should be done in this instance. Thanks. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a huge chunk of unverified material. I suggest the whole section is commented out for the rest of the day at least. This is embarrassing. I think we should exclude all FAs from Main Page that passed before the hoik in the criteria unless and until they pass FAR. --Dweller 06:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I take (some of) it back - I see the article passed FAR/FARC (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Thou/archive1) despite the "Current usage" section being present and entirely unreferenced at the time. Looks like the FAR wasn't rigorous enough, lol. Makes me wonder if you already apply the rule I suggested, Raul? --Dweller 10:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA Requests: "Outside the box" thinking[edit]

Regarding the problems with the requests page, perhaps one solution would be to divide it (bear with me) into dates: say the 14 days following from the end of the current queue.

  1. The page would be restricted in size to 14 sections (plus the section at the beginning detailing that the final decision rests with you, etc.).
  2. Requesters would be permitted to place only one request on the page on only one date. For each date there would probably be several requests (either for date-specific articles or people who didn't care about the date but just wanted their article on the main page).
  3. For each day you could select one of the articles listed (or not), and then delete the section. In this way the page growth (at least for the time being) would be curtailed as the older/unselected listings would be removed.

Anyway, this is just a "brainstorm" idea of mine. I don't care what you do with it, as you know, I've never made a request and I'm not going to! :-) Best wishes, DrKiernan 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agreee with Kiernan there is a humungus backlog over there, dating back to the beginning of this year. I think the proposal of sorts, should be brought up on the requests talkpage. Davnel03 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done, but I really dislike this idea. I think a modified form of the requests section at the top of the TFA page might be a good idea. Raul654 22:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

As a start, I've removed the write up suggestions area - it's too long and has far outlived its usefulness. Raul654 17:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that you have removed that section, here would you prefer that we construct potential write-ups for the TFA? Johntex\talk 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
To tell the truth, with a handful of very rare exceptions, I never use the suggested write ups. I write it up myself using the lead paragraphs from the article. Raul654 19:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I see. I didn't realize that. In this particular case, I started from the lead paragraphs but I made some changes that I feel make it read better for the Main Page (took some detail out, moved a major point up). I also selected the free-use image which I believe is most relevant to the article. I have placed my proposal here for your consideration.
I am not requesting any particular day for the article to appear. I hope you will work it in when you think it is appropriate. I would like to ask you to please avoid scheduling it this Nov 17-25 because I won't be around then and I don't want to miss its appearance. I hope that is not too much trouble. Johntex\talk 21:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Classical Music Sound Files[edit]

Are there going to be anymore pieces released to Wikipedia? It would nice to get some more orchestral pieces as the majority that were released are violin/cello sonatas or concertos. Centyreplycontribs – 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have a feeling you waited to create Lick me in the ass (best song title ever!) on 9 September in order to try and make that the 2,000,000th article. How close were you to getting that milestone?

The world is full of individual or small groups of musicians who want to see their music played by lots of people, and are willing to license it under a free license to achieve that goal. The same is not true of symphonies. That is to say, with the exception of the Fulda Symphony, I cannot think of one that would, nor do I think asking is likely to yield a positive response.
I did not create lick me in the ass to get the 2 millionth article - I created it 12 hours after the milestone. I did create Jerusalem bus 26 bombing to be the 2 millionth article, and missed it by only few ;) Raul654 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear FAC Director....[edit]

Would you please have a look over at the gender-neutral language proposal discussion, part the seventh or so: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#What we are now discussing, and share whatever wisdom you care to concerning the suggestion that we specifically exempt gender-specific language as a FAC criteria? Thank you. ←BenB4 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I spoke too fast below, and see from your edit summary at MOS talk that you were referring to the proposal to build GNL into the FA Criteria, something that has little support, I'm sure. I just wanted to emphasise that the current GNL text at MOS is a recommendation only, and is thus not grounds for opposing a nomination—I will continue to ask for generic male pronouns to be deftly changed on the basis of other, more general requirements of the FA Criteria, certainly not MOS (Criterion 2). Tony 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
This suggestion that people are trying to make it a requirement is unfortunate. That's not it at all. It is at best meekly suggestive. Your position does surprise me a little though, Raul—the Cambridge style guide[5], the United Nations[6] (PDF), and Mr. Jimbo Wales [7] have been cited in support of GNL at this point. Marskell 10:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the FA requirements or MOS should proscribe one particular "style" of writing over another (for the same reason it's OK to use either American or English spelling, dates, etc), especially when the style it is recommending against is still taught in schools. If someone wants to write in GNL, I don't object, but I do object to requiring people to write in GNL.
As for Tony's point regarding suggestion versus requirement: I consider the FA criteria to be requirements, not suggestions. All FAs must meet all criteria. (Obviously, this is not the case for all FAs, but that's what FAR is for) Tony says that the MOS entry would be a meek suggestion - I disagree. I consider the manual of style to be a suggesion in the sense that this-the-way-you-are-supposed-to-do-it-unless-you-have-a very-good-reason-not-to. I do not think that GNL is widely accepted enough as to proscribe it. Raul654 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears ringing yet? Also talking about you here; I think this fuss about minor MOS issues raised at FAC is a red herring. We're not stupid, after all, but it's really hard to get some editors to make these kinds of easy corrections post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 07:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


GNL "Please consider"[edit]

"Please consider using ..." is not a requirement. Why are you framing it as such at MOS talk? It's not helpful. Tony 05:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Please see my comment above. Tony 05:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

King Crimson FAC[edit]

Hello Mark. What was the reason for you restarting the FAC nomination? I thought that nominations were either archived or promoted, not restarted.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For borderline cases, I'd rather restart the nomination (and it give another chance) than fail it. Raul654 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked the intro and the references and I didn't see any problems. Raul654 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/someFutureDate[edit]

Heyo. Will you consider unprotecting the "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/..." series of pages, and instead allowing cascading protection of the Main Page and Main Page/Tomorrow to keep vandalism off the main page? This would allow all editors to make improvements and corrections to the proposed blurb right up until 24 hours before it goes live. With so many eyeballs on the page, it is very unlikely that anything undesirable would go unnoticed before it hit the main page. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 16:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, yes, I suppose that might could work, provided I don't end up with more problems like this Raul654 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, clearly people are going to disagree about the content of the blurb if it's protected or not; I doubt that the perennial Main Page Edit War Royale is going away anytime soon. Cascade protecting the will just make it easier for non-administrators to get their kicks in as well, at least if they do so ahead of time. ➪HiDrNick! 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind people tweaking it, as long as they don't change it in a way that I explicitly avoid. I don't include alternative names, translations, acronyms, etc unless they are essential to understanding the blurb, but in that case, people went ahead and put it in (twice). I'm in favor of not protecting the blurbs provided it doesn't exacerbate that problem. Raul654 01:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivàle FAC[edit]

Hi. I am new to this whole FAC thing, and it says you're the FAC director. I expanded and copyedited Carnivàle greatly and to the best of my powers and nominated it for FAC, thinking that it would (hopefully) pass after one or two weeks maximum. Now five weeks have passed and the nom slipped down to the third to last. There were two (WP:ILIKEIT???) supports, one comment by Tony who wanted to see another copyedit, and three comments/opposes that stayed that way although I addressed them or simply couldn't reasonably address without making the article/subject a lot worse. I have asked for copyedit help in several on- and off-wiki places, without much happening in the past weeks, so I can't tell whether Tony is just too hard on the article (he may have raised the bar too high with his great writing skills (edit: this was not supposed to sound snarky, rather was a sign of admiration)), or whether there is just no outside interest in this topic. I also don't want to go on a vote-shopping spree besides of who I've already informed (a few wikipedians who helped, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television). So, since the FAC is still open, and since I don't think that much will/can happen in the next few days, I'd like to ask what you'll do with this FAC (e.g. you mentioned restarting a nom two topics above), and what you think I should do to finally get it up to FA that doesn't require months of twiddling thumbs. (BTW, the article is currently at the top of the list on WP League of Copyeditors, but I don't know when they'll copyedit it.) Greetings :-) – sgeureka t•c 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Sandy to revisit her comments there. Raul654 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology mainpage[edit]

I noticed you cleared out the FAC todays featured article request page. So I wanted to ask, How does one go about getting an article onto the mainpage? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to request it for the main page in order for it to appear there. (I should probably put this in huge, bolding, blinking letters at the top of that page) You can if you want to, but most of the articles I put on the main page are not there because of any specific request. Also, since your article is in a relatively underpopulated section, and I try to selection from a wide variety of categories, this works in your favor for getting it on the main page sooner. Raul654 17:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'd like to see it on the mainpage soon so please do what you can to get it there sometime in the near future. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor[edit]

Hi Raul,

I wonder if you'd consider putting Georg Cantor into the main page queue. I saw your remarks about the "main page requests" page, and I'd point out that this is the first page I have ever requested be featured on the main page. Also it's a much meatier subject matter than many of the requests, and as you said there's a dearth of appearances of mathematics on the main page (this is a mathematician bio rather than a mathematics article per se, but it's a springboard to some very interesting mathematics articles). --Trovatore 18:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much! --Trovatore 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA Requests[edit]

That's much better! Two other things - I think you should remove this line: Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests in this section at any time. Five requests is a bit too little, I'd suggest twenty maybe? Also, maybe say that requests must be in chronological order. I also think it could be set out just a little differently, maybe like this (taken from current requests):

  • Date requests
    • September 2007
      • September 17
      • September 23 - 30
      • September 27
    • October 2007
      • Early October
      • October 3
Just my opinion. As it goes, I want to add an article (CM Punk) to the list, but can't due to the five request rule!! :( Davnel03 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur. Five is far too few (future editors note that this is five TOTAL requests allowed on the page, not five from one editor), unless you routinely accept/reject articles. Quite frankly, I'd like to see it just be requests for those dates in the next month which are available. You can have multiple requests for the same date, but once that date has been selected, all of them are just deleted released. In addition just state that you can only nominate one on the page at a time and that will cut down a lot on duplicates. — BQZip01 — talk 23:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
BQZip01, what you are suggesting, in essence, is that we have a nomination procedure for every day. This is something I will not do. I refused to do it back in 2004 when Drbalaji md proposed it (and it was subsequently unanimously rejected), and I'm saying it again now.
Davnel03 says: I want to add an article to the list, but can't due to the five request rule - yes, that's pretty much the point of me limiting it to 5 requests - so that I don't end up with 160 (or more) outstanding requests, like the ones I deleted today. Right now, open slots are doled out on a first-come-first serve basis, but I'm open to changing that if someone has a better idea that doesn't involve a whole lot of maintenance.
As for 5 being too few, it is apparent to me that if I make it 5, 10, 40, or 100 - the requests can only be fulfilled at a maximum rate of one per day. So what's going to happen if I increase the number of slots is that they are going to fill up (again), and then people are going to complain that there aren't enough slots to request an article. (Wash, rinse, and repeat) Raul654 07:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see your point. Even if there are 30 spots, you'd still end up with 160+ requests (with everyone shifting them down as their article wasn't picked.
Sooooo, why not combine the two? Have up to 30 days out available and just allow 3-5 per day. You still might have 150 on the page, BUT, you'd only be sifting through 5 each day ("Ah...Thursday...let's see what is out there...Hmmm, African baboon, Troy Aikman, Abstract art, Texas A&M University, and Plasma TVs...I'll go with Texas A&M University...) Ok, so there's a little shameless self-promotion in there :-), but my point is valid. As it currently stands, you have to be online at just the right time to catch a gap when you select/don't select one and it is removed. This way, you can have a reasonable amount of items that are regularly cleared out and are well-maintained, but that shouldn't get too excessive. In addition, have them done the same way as the FAC page in their own subpages. That should make it even easier to delete them. If you don't like any of them you can always pull from one of the others that are also on the page. — BQZip01 — talk 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I really, really dislike this idea. I do not want people nominating for every day. For that matter, I don't at all want to give people the impression that the have to nominate their articles in order for them to appear on the main page. And I certainly do not want 150 outstanding nominations. Raul654 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Regarding the fairness concerns, how about: "Articles are listed on a first-come, first-serve basis; to be fair to other editors, do not nominate more than once in any thirty day period."

One thought I've long had about the date requests: do they actually discriminate against articles that have no date attached? I edit animals, for instance, and there is never a date request that makes sense. Marskell 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I admit the thought never crossed my mind, but now that you mention it, yes, I suppose the requirement that they have some relevance to the article does in fact discriminate against articles (like animal articles) that have no relevant dates. Raul654 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
My intent is that the current guidelines for dates (only nominate by date if it is significant to the article) would no longer apply. An article for the attacks on 9/11 and a cheetah could be next to each other on September 11th and it would be Raul's choice as to which one to pick.
As for "don't nominate more than once over a thirty-day period", my solution inherently incorporates that. As it is, it is still a problem and a matter of luck to have a chance to get your article featured.
for example: let's say there are 100 people who want an article they worked on to be a TFA, but there are only 5 spots, leaving 95 people waiting. Raul picks one for TFA at 3 AM and the one person who happens to be up submits his, but no one else gets a shot. With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to get an article featured.
Raul, your thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to get an article featured - there is a very fundamental problem with your thinking here, and this sentence illustrates it. The point is, they do not have to make a request in order for their articles to appear on the main page. Raul654 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Then let me correct my phrasing since I "misspoke". With 95 people waiting, it is probable that 60 of those people will have little chance to request an article to be featured for TFA status. Additionally, you can certainly add an explicit disclaimer at the top stating something to the effect of "The TFA director reserves the right to select any Featured Article for any day (even those not listed). This page is strictly for TFA requests." How about that? — BQZip01 — talk 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Raul, at least improve it to 10 if anything! :) Davnel03 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm considering increase it, but I'm not going to promise anything. I'd much hear suggestions on how to change the system from first-come-first-serve to a merit-based one. Raul654 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)`

Can I suggest you do a bit of editing of the request page yourself. Today for exsample you rejected a request for September 17th, this is fine but it would be nice if the provied resoning for it on the reqest page. Also if you see a request and think "well there is no way I'm putting that on the main page on that day" delete it and give your reason in the Edit summary. This way users would have to wait as long for open slots. Buc 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I rejected your September 17 request because I felt that Piotrus's request for the same date was a better fit. But this is not something I want to do for every request, especially given that people want to have more slots (up to 30, one for every day for the next month). Raul654 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology FA[edit]

Hi,

I'm just really astonished at your actions- this is an attempt to work things out peaceably. You seem to be operating out of your own view of parapsychology, rather than abiding by the conventions of discourse and the decision of the other Arbitrators. They clearly said that parapsychology is a scientific discipline. Bauder changed his mind about it. There are plenty of reasons to put it under psychology- for one thing, parapsychology resides under psychology departments at the universities.

I'm also disturbed by the censorship exhibited by your reverting my flag and then protecting the page. I've never seen action like this from any other admin. In other words, this is a first for me, and it seems like an abuse of power. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

He isn't abusing any powers. He is the main person responsible for maintaining that page and he's protecting it due to edit warring that was occurring. You should be a bit less hasty in labeling people as abusing powers and should assume better faith. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Except, he is edit warring against two other users- and all I did was change it once, then change it again and give reasons. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, you also added a completely ridiculous {{totally-disputed}} template at the top of a page linked prominently from the Main Page; not only does it look tacky, but it categorizes the page with articles as well. It wasn't exactly a smooth move on your part. ➪HiDrNick! 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for putting it there were sound if it was a normal article. As I explained in the summary, there were issues of both POV and content. In a normal article, it is part of the regular escalation if a user insists on edit warring- you tag rather than revert, then you discuss more. I have no experience with non-article pages, so you may be right about it not being correct on FA. I have no idea. Reverting and protecting the article was not right either.
The tags are supposed to be ugly- they're supposed to inspire users to work things out. If this page needed special treatment, then Raul should have explained that- if he'd reverted and explained that it wasn't right on this page specially, then gone back to the talk page and discussed, I would not have reverted back or anything. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully we didn't get off on the wrong foot. I don't feel as strongly about it as Martinphi, but I would like to see it properly classified. I understand that you don't want it listed alongside "Biology" and maybe it shouldn't be. It is, however, heavily related to "Psychology". It is a part of transpersonal psychology and though it may not be as straightforward as the hard sciences, it is a soft science. It's not a belief system at all, isn't religious like Creation science and Intelligent design and actually get's discussed in mainstream periodicals like Nature and Psychological Bulletin from time to time. Totally fringe science, but science nonetheless. We've had a lot of discussions about this on the talk page of parapsychology, and did spend months in aribitration trying reaching consensus. All in all it's been almost two years working these very issues out. It is definitely tied to psychology (please take the time to read through it) and if lumped in with "Religion, mysticism, and mythology", there has to be some sort of distinction drawn for it to be properly categorized. Again, don't feel as strongly about it as others might, but "belief system" is definitely a few too many shades off right. Sorry, I know you feel strongly about that, but please consider the past consensus. --Nealparr (talk to me) 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't call it a stellar beginning, but I agree with you - let's wipe the slate clean and try again from the start :)
I am absolutely opposed to putting parapsychology into biology and medicine; however, someone suggested on the talk page modifying the religion/mystecism header to include pseudoscience or fringe science or the like. This is something I could accept.
However, it's very late now, and I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll respond further tomorrow afternoon. Raul654 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Since not all pseudoscience and fringe science is related to religion, mysticism, etc. my proposal would be to change "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" to "Religion, mysticism, mythology and paranormal". Martinphi doesn't agree, but I think that "paranormal" would create enough of a distinction that it isn't necessarily religious or mystical. It would also open the section up to future FA articles, like maybe one on UFOs, which aren't religious or mystical but are paranormal. Fringe science would be alright, but as Wikidudeman pointed out there may not be enough articles to populate the section. Pseudoscience is a pejorative and should be avoided for that reason, and that there are very few topics wholly "pseudoscientific". Pseudoscientific is a singular point of view and largely a subjective interpretation of what is and isn't science. As I pointed out on the talk page, psychiatry psychoanalysis is seen by some to be pseudoscientific. Actually all of psychology has been called pseudoscientific at one time or another. Still, you wouldn't put them under the cat "pseudoscience". It may be your point of view that it parapsychology is pseudoscience, and that's certainly a view shared by some, but it's not the view shared by all in the scientific community (as shown through the references in the parapsychology article). I think a "paranormal" category, whether it is an addition to an existing category or a new one, would be sufficient (though, again, Martinphi doesn't agree). --Nealparr (talk to me) 17:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out on the talk page, psychiatry is seen by some to be pseudoscientific. Actually all of psychology has been called pseudoscientific at one time or another. Did you intend to mix up psychiatry and psychology? Psychiatry is medicine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Doh, I meant psychoanalysis : ) I need to refresh my coffee. Psychoanalysis is often considered pseudoscience though it fits under psychology. But yes, besides maybe behavioral psychology, all of psychology has been considered pseudoscience at some point by someone. There are even some groups of people who see only natural science as science and anything else as pseudoscience. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, But once Homeopathy reaches FA status, Where will it go? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't look like an imminent issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It will be FA soon. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Better get busy cleaning up those references, making sure they are the highest-quality sources available, and pruning and cleaning up the external links (and don't forget to peruse WP:DASH and WP:MOSCAPS#All caps); that's my 30-second appraisal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a "Fringe science and alternative theories" cat, though there'd be few articles to start with. --Nealparr (talk to me) 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We do need a category which includes "paranormal." This is because there will be more articles, (like say Reincarnation research, which made good article at one point), which will make it here. But Parapsychology is a special case. After many months of work and a very contentious Arbitration in which Raul's viewpoint was eloquently expressed by many, including Wikidudeman, the Arbitrators wrote this:

...there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way...[8]

This is not really open to interpretation; parapsychology is serious science, and deserves to be recognized as such- at least if other aspects of the field such as psychoanalysis are also recognized.

However, I understand Raul's reluctance to put the article under hard sciences such as Biology. I think what is needed is a heading Anthropology, sociology and psychology. Parapsychology would fit under that, with the rest of the questionable sciences (and I live on the Navajo Reservation, I know that Anthropology is very questionable(-: )

But parapsychology does not fit where it is. I have no idea why biology and psychology are lumped together. My position is that parapsychology is a sub-discipline of psychology. It may be hated, in reality it may be pseudoscience- but the ArbCom said it was science, and it is definitely under psychology. So wherever psychology is put, there also goes parapsychology, though it be the Harry Potter in the Dursley's house. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nielparr, Martinphi: How about changing the section header to 'Religion, belief, and the paranormal"? (I prefer to keep the section headers to 3 words or less) Raul654 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Martinphi may not be, but since parapsychology is the study of paranormal it is an appropriate category. I would suggest dropping "belief" and replacing it with mythology. Right now it's "Religion, mysticism, and mythology". Mysticism can be dropped because it's close enough to Religion. Mythology is needed because Greek mythology is in there. Beliefs also include philosophy, which has it's own category. So my recommendation is "Religion, Mythology, and Paranormal". But like I said, as long as it has "Paranormal" in it it's appropriate for parapsychology. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You could alternatively change it to "Religion, Mythology, and Theoretical Ideas". Then it would house everything from UFOs to parapsychology to conspiracy theories to homeopathy (Wikidudeman was looking for a place for that in the future). The only qualification to meet "theoretical ideas" would be for it to be unproven. That can certainly be said of most paranormal subjects.--Nealparr (talk to me) 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, heck, this discussion is going on in two places; I responded on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Talk page it is. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

toadstooly thanks[edit]

Well, that main page stint for Amanita phalloides certainly resulted in some lively editing and debate. Is that par for the course or was it particularly busy? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It looked like it got about 130 edits, which is par for the course for specialty articles. I think the record holders for most edits on the day they are featured are Wii, Lord of the Rings, and Cheese (all at over 500). Raul654 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Time between FA promotion and appearing on the main page[edit]

It seems very inconsistent. Today is a good exsample. Dungeons & Dragons has been a FA for just two weeks while Wednesday's FA, Thou, had been a FA for almost 4 years.

Now I understand that articles are being promoted at a faster rate than they are apearing on the main page and that can only be a good thing. So as time goes no articles will have to wait longer. Sadly some users fail to understand this as show by the request page. So for the mosst part I have no problem with some articles going on the main page before others. FA shouldn't of coruse be placed on the main page in the order they are promoted. But the above exsample really puzzles me. So I have two questions.

Is how long an article has been a FA a factor you have ever taken into account when selecting TFA?

If not would you consider making it one in very extreme cases? For example, an artcle cannot appear on the main page until it has been a FA for X weeks and article which have been a FA for X years are given priority. Buc 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is how long an article has been a FA a factor you have ever taken into account when selecting TFA - Not at all.
As for your second question, I am absolutely opposed to the former and not keen on the latter. A mandatory minimum time for articles to appear on the main page would add an extra step for me for every article I schedule. I will not do it. As far giving older articles priority, I would consider doing it on an individual article basis, but not for all the older articles. Raul654 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stanford prison experiment[edit]

The Stanford prison experiment article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Diff for today shows no changes - lots of edits, but nothing has actually changed. Raul654 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're name[edit]

You probably didn't notice this post above, but if you didn't see it,

I was reading recent changes around a hour ago, and I was wondering about you're name. Is it pronounced like Rahul, or is it Rawl? Just a curious question. And what's with the 654? You don't have to answer that part, it's just random...

Yamakiri on Firefox 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a really stupid reason, actually - I'm almost embarrassed to say. Many years ago in my introductory spanish class, we choose spanish names and I choose this one. I registered it on AOL instant messanger around the same time, and (because it was taken) I choose the totally meaningless number 654 to add to it. Since then, it's been intertia that has keep me using it. Raul654 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Muy interesante. Tengo gusto del nombre. Do you still know any spanish? --Aude (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Muy poco ;) Raul654 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well thanks then! Mine's my grandfather's first name. Yamakiri 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

[9]

Out of curiosity, why did you rollback this edit? As I pointed out here, there are valid reasons to change the wording. Melsaran (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Because Mike R is correct and you are not. Your selective quoting of the manual of style not withstanding, Ass and arse are synonomous, and changing from American english to British english because you like it is prohibited. Raul654 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm not changing from American to British English because "I like it" (I didn't even change it after my edit was reverted, I chose to discuss it), please don't accuse me of that. Second, you shouldn't use administrator rollback for such things, but you should explain your revert. Melsaran (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I dunno the specfics of rollback, but is it really all that different than using Undo, or a couple of the other ways of auto-reverting I've seen? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:ROLLBACK: Rollbacks should be used with caution and restraint, in part because they leave no explanation for the revert in the edit summary. Reverting a good-faith edit may therefore send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation." It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted. Melsaran (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. While I agree with you that ass is the right word, I'm a little concerned about your use of the word prohibited. That's a pretty strong word. I'm also a little concerned that you may be running up against WP:3RR here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

English Language[edit]

I take it you're American, you have my sympathy.

Please assume good faith.

That is all. Chump Manbear 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

Hi there Raul, please be aware that you've just been reported to WP:AN/3RR for breaking the three revert rule on Leck mich im Arsch. I've protected the article, in many ways to stop you getting blocked. You should know more than most people that edit warring is a bad thing, and this is the second time in recent months that it's happened. Please try and be more carefull. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

You had mentioned above a more merit based TFA request process. I threw this together for consideration: User:Marskell/TFA considerations. Main points:

  • Older featured articles. Priority is given to articles that have been waiting longest for a TFA slot where they are clearly of current standard.
  • Nominators who have multiple articles pending (e.g., "I have taken six through FAC but only two have gone to TFA").
  • Core topics of widespread interest. TFA attempts to balance the unusual with the well-known, but preference is given to subjects of universal interest; particularly, TFA is intended for an international and not merely English-speaking audience.
  • Subject matter that has not been recently on the mainpage. If Uranus was yesterday's TFA, we will wait some months to place Neptune.

This or something like wouldn't have to be a separate page but could be incorporated into Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The critical point would be that nominators would tell you "it's twelve months, this is my first nom" etc. Marskell 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

These are good criteria. Two things though:
Just to nitpick, "priority" in the first item should not be interpreted strictly (as it would, for example, in an operating system). That is to say, they will be given extra consideration, but I am not going to guarentee that all older articles well be given priority over all newer articles.
More importantly, these are good criteria (that allow me to compare requests), but I'm not really sure how to impliment them (or if we should at all). Stayed tuned. Raul654 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
"...they will be given extra consideration, but I am not going to guarentee that all older articles well be given priority over all newer articles." Nor should you! Some of them are clearly not going to be up to snuff (hence the bold). What it basically amounts to: "Have you been waiting a while? You have? We'll try to get it up there, but no promises." What would be helpful more than anything is if people started saying "it was featured on X date, it has had Y improvements, and I personally have Z FAs waiting." Marskell 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That, plus strong article-to-date connections (like yesterday's) and yes, that might be a good way to structure requests. Raul654 05:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat FA Status Peer Review[edit]

Greetings Raul, when do you get to the nomination of Yasser Arafat as a Featured Article Candidate? Its been days! Nonetheless you are the mayor here and you can obviously take your time. I'm just reminding you. Al Ameer son 16:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Scartol withdrew the nomination yesterday, with your consent. At that point, it had been on the FAC for just over two days; I don't promote articles unless they've been there at least 5 days (4 if the FAC is overflowing) Raul654 17:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you adopt me?[edit]


I think I edited that right...Yamakiri 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sure - I'd be happy to help however I can, but I'm not really sure what adoption entails. Raul654 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. I know a little bit of markup, and I've been an IP for probably 4 months, but I don't know that much. My userpage says all I know. Yamakiri 19:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FAOL[edit]

Raul, I just figured out what {{FAOL}} is about, and why you remove it from FAs. I left Gimmetrow a note asking if he could automate its removal from FAs; can you weigh in here? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Gimmetrow left more questions there; I'm unclear on these issues. Raul, since you know the pseudoscience arbcom decisions well, when you have time, can you view my comments at autism? No hurry, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied at talk:Autism. Raul654 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that wording helps (that is, it could if there were enough WP Medicine members to combat all the quackery edits). SandyGeorgia (Talk) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal of FAC for Yasser Arafat[edit]

Oops! I asked on WP:IRC about how to withdraw an FAC, and was told to simply remove the template code from the main FAC page. I did this for Yasser Arafat (the nominator and I agreed we needed to do more peer reviewing) before seeing the response to my question left here. I'm very sorry if this has caused you headaches; I just wanted to keep things simple and it may have backfired. Apologies again if I've done wrong. – Scartol · Talk 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. So in the future, I should leave a note here or at SG's page, rather than do it myself? – Scartol · Talk 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I *think* you can move it to the archive without causing an averse problems for Gimmetrow. Otherwise, just leave a note on the nomination page saying it's withdrawn and I'll get rid of it during my next archiving. Raul654 18:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, leaving a note on the nomination page was what Scartol did, following my IRC advice. Would you rather I suggested archiving next time someone asks? I thought it riskier. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC).
Gimmetrow is in a better position to answer that than I am. I'll leave him a note asking him to comment. Raul654 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
If I see a clear and unambiguous request to withdraw from a nominator, I proceed according to 1 and 2 below, based on past discussions with Raul about how to handle nominator withdraws, and taking into account whether or not to engage GimmeBot to add it to articlehistory. It's trickier when someone else suggests withdrawing, but the nominator doesn't respond (we have one of those now); in those cases, I wait for Raul. (adding on after edit conflict: Raul, you and I had this conversation in the past with Gimmetrow, and we decided on the 1, 2 course below.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what I need to respond to. If a transclusion is 1) added to the current archive page, and 2) still unchanged when the bot runs (ie, hasn't been moved to /archiveN by a previous run), and 3) is missing either part of the close tag, then it will be incorporated into articlehistory. It will be marked as "not promoted" though. Gimmetrow 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I usually do:

  1. When the article has no significant opposes or content, I move the FAC file to the next open archive and clear the redirect, leaving the FAC file ready for the next FAC submission. When I clear the redirect, I indicate it was withdrawn, so that RickBlock's scripts can detect the "withdrawn" wording. I don't archive it on the talk page, in articlehistory or in the FAC archives, since these are cases that have no significant opposes or content. Sample: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Real Madrid C.F. (first FAC is archived, second is not)
  2. When a FAC is withdrawn after significant opposes, I add it to the FA archives so that GimmeBot will botify it, archive it, and add it to articlehistory. Sample: The Simpsons Movie was withdrawn after significant opposes: I move it to archives for full botificationn to articlehistory.

The first case (no meaningful content) doesn't trigger or involve GimmeBot, but I archive it with a withdrawn for RickBlock. The second case engages GimmeBot, by moving it to the FA archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica[edit]

Would it be too cheeky to have Encyclopædia Britannica on the front page on Wikipedia day? If so I'll post a generic request. -Ravedave 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also it appears Cyclops64 is out of date.-Ravedave 05:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Requests go here. EB has already been on the main page.
I'll have to update the C64 page. I'm told that it'll be going to fab this friday, and my group should theoretically receive a functioning C64 node (probably 3x3x3) in December (realistically, January). Raul654 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, and thanks. I removed that it would be ready in early 2007. -Ravedave 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

FA on Main Page Request[edit]

I would request you to put Kaziranga National Park on the Main Page. This is first national park article outside The Americas to feature. The first from Asia, India. The last one relateed to national park to be shown on the main page was in January 2007. More over this park is a World Heritage Site, and two-thirds of the world's Great One-horned Rhinoceroses live in the park. I will like it to be featured anytime before November. I am having exam and will not be active in Wikipedia till April. Hope u will keep my humble request. One good date may be 2nd October as this is the bithday of Mahatma Gandhi, who is the fater of the nation of India. Amartyabag TALK2ME 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests go here Raul654 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Real Madrid C.F.[edit]

Hi Raul654! Please watch Real Madrid C.F. article. I've put it to FAC and I'm preety sure it'll succeed. MERCY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadrianos1990 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Music and Eva[edit]

So I'm pleasantly surprised that your new music you were talking has turned out to be useful for any articles I care about[10], and I took the opportunity to download and listen to them; but Image:Air (Bach).ogg is awfully scratchy. Any chance of getting another one? --Gwern (contribs) 20:38 16 September 2007 (GMT)

That's the nature of 1920s-era recordings
I'll check the usual places and see if something better pops up. Raul654 20:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't really ask for more than that. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 21:04 16 September 2007 (GMT)

Adoption[edit]

Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User is a mentoring program, where new users can ask older ones questions about Wikipedia, and learn what they can do to benifit the project. I know a little bit of markup, and I've been an IP for probably 4 months, but I don't know that much. My userpage says all I know. Yamakiri 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Wikihermit CO

Rename user:Wikihermit to user:CO Thanks! ~ Wikihermit 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

2,000,000[edit]

I just noticed your comment about Ramat Gan bus 20 bombing - very cute. A smile graced my lips for a few seconds, honest :-) TewfikTalk 08:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment? Raul654 12:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it was something about it being the 2,000,000th entry - don't remember. TewfikTalk 02:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Credentials[edit]

It is all but in the bag my friend. All supports and one neutral. I went and photographed the Brooklyn Book Festival yesterday - about 45 new portrait shots. I haven't finished uploading them all yet. --David Shankbone 12:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Great gatsby.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Great gatsby.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress[edit]

Can you tell me the difference between a FLC and an FAC? You can answer at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/110th United States Congress. Thanks!!!!—Markles 21:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to the featured list process, but with only 3 paragraphs of prose, it's clearly not eligible to be a featured article. Raul654 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Validating email addresses in web forms[edit]

You've commented at "Ninja Assassination Squad: Is wikipedia run by neo-fascist, rule-book geek zealots?". Retrieved 2007-09-18.  offering to help with problems User:Badcop666 ran into with an article on "Best practice in validating email addresses in web forms" regarding arguments about it being advertising. It has been moved to User:BenB4/Email sandbox. I've no idea how much of it is useful, but I've raised the point at Talk:E-mail#Validating email addresses in web forms and left a note at User talk:Badcop666. Guess I'd better add a comment to the neo-fascist page ;) . .. dave souza, talk 09:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Silly me forgot to check AN, BenB4 has now sorted out HTML form e-mail address validation, essentially the same article with a bit of wikifying. Others have given sound advice, and all should be happy now. ... dave souza, talk 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hi Raul, I'm writing in the hope you might be a sympathetic ear. I'm off to edit citizendium - I may be back here, maybe not - in tying up loose ends I've been trying to get an overly long and verbose article of mine deleted, to no avail. [11][12][13][14] Do you have any advice? I thought Criteria 7 seemed quite clear cut and explicit - one of the admins even said the request did technically comply with the criteria, but just couldn't bring himself to do it. The article's rubbish as it stands and needs a lot of work, it needs all the prose pruning, facts paring back to the essentials, the current site plan revising, several other diagrams completing and then a load of additions - I'm quite happy to have it userfied, but I'm loath to leave it in mainspace in that condition. Cheers, --Joopercoopers 09:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Query[edit]

I'm sure you're aware of the present debates regarding featured articles and adherence to the manual of style. Several people have expressed the concern that FAs focus primarily on style, and don't focus enough on content. Looking over the FAC and FARC pages, I do see that more than half of the nominations are judged on "MOS breaches" - but I note there's only three editors who make these comments. A side effect appears to be that this is generating an air of hostility that appears to be driving people away from the FAC process.

I believe, as you suggested on the admin board, that splitting the process into a section on content and a section on MOS may be the most useful approach. Alternatively, the people who object to "MOS breaches" could be encouraged to fix them (generally a simple matter) rather than to request de-featuring. At any rate I would appreciate your opinion on this. >Radiant< 12:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, when you refer at the start of para 2 to "the process", do you mean FAC, FARC or both? btw I like the idea a lot, although I think it makes sense to "do" the content issues first, or new MOS breaches could be introduced during the content fixes. --Dweller 12:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Both. Since we don't protect articles in their featured form, it is easy to fix punctuation and so forth even while they're featured - at least significantly easier than make substantial changes to the content. >Radiant< 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Dweller 13:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
From the point of view of an occasional reviewer, I'd rather not split my comments into form and content. I agree with whoever said on another thread that both have to be right for an article to be featured. I agree that it's a shame for an article to fail for purely MoS considerations, but before we fix that problem I'd like to know that that happens, or seems likely to be a big enough issue that we need to enhance FA process to deal with it.
If it does need to be dealt with, then one approach might be for Raul to tag the FAC nomination page for that article with a tag that means "This article will be promoted to FA if the MoS issues are dealt with". That would clarify to the nominator that the MoS issues do need to be addressed, and give them a fair chance to deal with it. It would also, no doubt, lead to some debates on those noms, adding to Raul's workload. Perhaps Raul could delegate any subsequent authority on that FAC to someone he trusts to deal with MoS issues. Mike Christie (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FACs needing input[edit]

There may be other editors like me who're happy to weigh in with an FAC opinion on any article needing one. If you find any stagnant FACs, or ones needing review after improvements etc, feel free to drop me a line. --Dweller 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough FAC[edit]

This nomination is not getting much interest. I would appreciate any advice you might have..? Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise you must be very busy, but can you please have a quick look at this. Yesterday's objection is strongly worded, but based on wholly unfounded comments. However, although additional refs. have now been added and the points raised answered, I do not think that this particular editor will revisit his decision. So far, although a lot of work has gone into it, there has been a distinct lack of interest in the nomination, with me (strongly) and a (single edit) IP supporting and two other editors now opposing. Cheers, Chrisieboy 16:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image[edit]

Hello, Raul. I don't know if you've been told (I haven't checked), but I nominated Image:Hydrangea macrophylla - Hortensia hydrangea.jpg, which you uploaded, to Quality image status at the Commons, and it got promoted. Congrats! --Agüeybaná 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I answered your question here. --Agüeybaná 01:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Please check your email. I sent you something. :) -- Cat chi? 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyclops64 COI[edit]

Raul, you created and extensively edited the Cyclops64 article. How is that any less of a COI than THF's editing ? ATren 16:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Because my funding does not come from the Cyclops64 grant - I do not have an finincial incentive to make it look good; because there isn't anything in that article that is less than objectively true, and because the article is sourced to a published, peer-reviewed journal article (actually, now that I look at it, I realize it should also cite Yingping's memo and/or master's thesis for the cross-bar information). On the other hand, THF did have a finincial incentive, did make a number of states that were debatable (if not outright false), and did not cite even a single peer-reviewed source. Raul654 16:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"CAPSL, my research group, was subcontrated by IBM to do systems software development and hardware verification for the Cyclops64 architecture". So according to this, your research group was funded by IBM, and that funding was specifically tied to Cyclops64. This seems to be a clear financial COI according to the standard you seem to be setting for THF. You also claim that the research was peer reviewed, but I see one single source on that article - pointing back to your own research page. Further, you imply that THF's sources were not reliable, but I have not seen significant evidence of that. Indeed, one of THF's so-called offensive edits was sourced to a WSJ article, and most of THF's edits were better sourced than the Cyclops64 article is today.

I want to be completely clear here: I'm not claiming Cyclops64 is a COI violation - my point is that THF has not violated COI any more than you have. If you find THF guilty of COI, you set a dangerous precedent where even good faith editors will be subject to undue COI scrutiny. ATren 16:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

CAPSL was a reciepit of such a grant (specifically, our hardware group - Daniel, Matt, Fei, and a few others). I do not believe I have. My funding comes from an unrelated NSF grant. (Note: it is possible it did for several months in late 2005-early 2006; I'm not sure on this point) My work with C64 is purely academic and research oriented - it's one of the target platforms for my masters. But to reiterate - I have no finincial ties to it.
As far as the sourcing, it comes from CAPSL technical memo 55 linked from the bottom of the article ("Technical description of the Cyclops64 architecture and system software"). If you check the CAPSL publications page, you'll see that memo was published (in arbidged form) in High Performance Computing Systems and Applications (HPCS) in 2006. See here
As for the contents of the article, I stand by evertthing in it - every statement in there is totally unassailable. Unlike THF, I also included criticism when describing the concrete programming paradigm IBM has adopoted with regard to C64 and its other multi-core chips: One negative consequence is that efficiently programming Cyclops64 is difficult. Raul654 18:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting[edit]

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Shankbone/THF arbcom case[edit]

Per [15] there's some question being posed whether you have prejudged the case and were involved in the dispute.

The edits posted concern me, on first review. Can you discuss there? Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 20:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

The article A Streetcar Named Marge was just passed and I would love to see it on the main page on October 1, the 15th anniversary of its airdate. However, since it was just promoted, would it be worth adding it to the request page, or would it just be a waste of time? -- Scorpion0422 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel FAC[edit]

This is becoming torture. If you don't mind, I'd like to have your honest assessment of the proceedings of this FAC so far and whether I should (a) withdraw it (if possible) out of improbability of it being successful or (b) keep persevering as there is still light at the end of the tunnel. I know there has been some discussion recently surrounding the role of the Manual of Style in featured processes (particularly with the creation of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions), and I'm a bit curious where the line is supposed to be drawn here. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's late now and I'm about to hit the hay - I'll take a look at it tomorrow and let you know what I think. Raul654 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Whenever you get to it. -- tariqabjotu 05:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Yom Kippur War?[edit]

Is it still nessecary for Yom Kippur War to be protected? It has been for a week now, and I would like to make some edits.

Thank you for your time. --RucasHost 07:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 18:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[16] Was it really a good idea to repeatedly use rollback in a content dispute and then protect the page after you approach 3RR? Melsaran (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the consensus reached on the talk page months prior, rather than opening up the introduction to the endless bickering that articles in that area are subject to. Protecting the article was a superior option to blocking him - so yes, it was a perfectly good idea. Raul654 18:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page queue[edit]

Just a friendly note to mention the queue is a bit... erm... short. And, if you're after some inspiration (!), 6th October is the anniversary of the death of the Tiger --Dweller 12:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the queue is getting low. I'll be fixing that soon. Raul654 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. --Dweller 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Military brat[edit]

Someone needs to straighten out the mess just made by an admin move of Military brat (US subculture) to Military brat (without the talk page and without the articlehistory or FACs, leaving the featured article history in a stub). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I started by fixing some of the double redirects, before realizing that this might not be what you had in mind. Am I correct that you want the move undone? Raul654 19:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering 1) there was no discussion of the move, and 2) the article title was hotly discussed on all of its FACs, it seems like we do need to get back to the original title, unless you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't disambiguate unless we have to. Is military brat commonly used outside the US? If yes - disambiguate (revert the move); if no - then don't disambiguate (keep the move). Raul654 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but there was a big brouhaha on the FACs about the article only applying to the US, hence the addition of (US subculture); I thought it was much ado about nothing, but quite the fuss it was. The solution may have been to redirect the disambiguation page, but leave the article where it was. I dunno; when the main editors surface, I suspect they're gonna start screaming, because that title was such a big issue. (I left you a question on Mozart as I'm trying to figure out where to park the TS info, btw.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Commons users by upload size[edit]

mysql> SELECT img_user_text AS user, SUM(img_size) AS total_upload_size FROM image GROUP BY user ORDER BY total_upload_size DESC LIMIT 15;
+-----------------+-------------------+
| user            | total_upload_size |
+-----------------+-------------------+
| GerWsUpload     |       45728473908 |
| Infrogmation    |       17630099277 |
| MarcBot         |       11654894160 |
| G.dallorto      |        9792359453 |
| Red Rooster     |        8735780555 |
| Jastrow         |        7452304928 |
| Sailko          |        7285896135 |
| AndreasPraefcke |        7093517481 |
| 663highland     |        6947084813 |
| FlickrLickr     |        6728044411 |
| Joergens.mi     |        6721916117 |
| Rama            |        6562794526 |
| FlickreviewR    |        6528027695 |
| Ebyabe          |        6365758498 |
| Mbdortmund      |        5852205739 |
+-----------------+-------------------+
15 rows in set (30 min 29.84 sec)

Sizes are in bytes. I'm busy generating a top 100, but that may take some more time. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What are those measurements in? Bytes? Raul654 19:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, bytes. I have also generated a top 1000. This one also includes old uploads. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What does it signify that I'm 45th on the list? Anything good or bad? --David Shankbone 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I asked Bryan to find out who has uploaded the most data to commons by data size (in megabytes). So yes, it's a good thing. Raul654 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Some more info: the total size of Commons is 948762093396 bytes. That is almost one terabyte :) -- Bryan (talk|commons) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If you combine me with Raulbot, my bot account (I created it to use a custom upload script I wrote before commonist was created), I shoot up to 49th :) Raul654 19:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, you're right - 883 gigabytes. That's pretty sweet. Raul654 20:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
How the hell has Infrogmation uploaded 16 gigabytess? That's 15 one-megabyte pictures per day, every day, since Commons started. Raul654 20:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've only been on Commons since January 2007 - :-) --David Shankbone 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yow, I'm surprised by the numbers too. I image much of that is from my clicking away in the post-Katrina ruins and uploading them since. Yow, I hate to think how much I would have uploaded if I'd had regular access to high-speed internet in the year after the disaster.... and if I'd gotten a decent digital camera a couple years earlier... Your byteheavy cyber-pal, -- Infrogmation 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to WP:BYTE. --Dweller 21:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I refer to you Wp:delicious :) Raul654 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Were you refering to a deliberately empty and mysterious link, or was something supposed to be there? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke on WP:BITE (as Raul detected) --Dweller 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
lol. I took it as an allusion to the idea that there were no byte limits on uploads of users. Learn something new... — BQZip01 — talk 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA[edit]

You'll notice a new criterion regarding wikiprojects. (A dozen edits later.) It's not my preferred but I'm above three changes if not three reverts. I dunno—I should be working on the next FA but I'm caught in numerous brush fires. My first thought is you should just scrap it, because the projects are a can of worms. My second thought is that people like Kirill at Milhist have earned a spot on WIAFA. How best to do it? Marskell 23:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! Somehow that page went off my watchlist. I just checked, and see all these changes, and I'm not happy with some them. I'll be changing some thing now. Raul654 02:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
OK! I hope you don't oppose the footnotes/Harvard thing. I think it does work in shutting up concerns. Marskell 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I think this criteria is just too vague. Individuals within a wikiproject are free to support or oppose it individually. As previously written, 'Object - war articles are supposed to do X and this article does Y' was a valid objection (and it should be); under the new rules, the criteria is so vague that it could cover almost anything. I cannot recall even a single problem relating to this criteria, so I don't see any problem sticking with the old wording or scrapping it entirely. Raul654 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Your edit to the featured article criteria that replaced the requirement for a table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming. Would you mind commenting on the talk page? Mahalo, Raul. --Ali'i 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag my username[edit]

Is there any way that you can flag my username as a bot account only so that my AWB edits don't flood the New pages log? Is this possible? I don't know how to use "bots" however Is it possible that my name be flagged so that my edits don't show up on the new page log and flood it? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ping![edit]

You appear to be online. Please check the {{editprotected}} request for TFA. Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Delaware State[edit]

Oh my gosh! I just heard about the shooting on campus. Crap. ... Kenosis 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not my University (in case you were confused). Delstate is in Dover; my University is in Newark (main campus, at least). Raul654 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Peterborough FAC[edit]

Not sure if/when you're planning to do another round of FAC promoting/archiving etc, but (I hope) we're close to resolving all issues, so please hang off on this for a few more days, unless of course a load of other ppl weigh in with a mass of objects. (I find that unlikely!) Ta. --Dweller 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The broken[edit]

Hi, can you delete the page "Thebroken"(it's a redirect) and after MOVE the page "the broken" on "thebroken" (without spaces)?. Because the correct name is "thebroken" without spaces, so the main page should be placed there. I've already fix all links from "What links here". Ok, tnx bye!--DrugoNOT 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

ehm, will you help me? yes or no? O__O cya--DrugoNOT 19:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Raul654 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! bye!:)--DrugoNOT 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quneitra FAC nom[edit]

Thanks Raul. I must admit I hadn't checked in on the FAC nom for a while - I assumed it'd failed for lack of response. I see there've been a few more comments recently, so I'll have a crack at sorting out the issues they raised. -- ChrisO 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Librarians are hiding something[edit]

Might I ask why you protected a redirect from Librarians are hiding something to Stephen Colbert? It seems an inappropriate redirect and an inside joke, whch WP doesn't usually allow. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned it on his March 27 show as his new catch phrase, which is why it was necessary to immediately redirect it and protect the redirect. Raul654 19:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
See here Raul654 19:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sylar[edit]

No problem about the revert - I've tweaked the text to address both of our concerns. However, i was looking at my edit summary and realized it could be seen as being a bit abrupt. ("Please make sure you keep the proper formatting if you revert.") Please don't take it as such - apologies in advance. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

FA image for September 27[edit]

Regarding [17] How about this image of the actor who plays Lex Luthor?--Chaser - T 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Better, still not great though. Raul654 00:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I've cropped that image to see what it looks like [18] - what do you think? WjBscribe 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Encyclopedias as sources[edit]

I brought up this issue at the Israel FAC as you can see. Frankly I need to know this. Once I got reverted for using Britannica and now I think maybe the one who did it was right. Britannica is perhaps the best way for finding info on something but is it acceptable as a reference? I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica? Is it good for us in the long term if we can't trace all information to its roots? Squash Racket 14:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may use Britannicia and other tertiary sources. I mean what if we multiply mistakes in Britannica - the same could be said of any source of information. Raul654 14:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Use them only as last resort, of course—secondary sources are still the preferred. Marskell 15:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this. Squash Racket 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

David Shear[edit]

You recently added David Shear (talk · contribs) to Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. I have removed this listing for the moment. The only reference we have for this right now is this edit by Buzzardcheater (talk · contribs). I have left the user a message, asking for an outside source. AecisBrievenbus 15:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You could always try asking his son or wife Raul654 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

umm[edit]

I've got a question, do you know why my sig doesn't show all I put in, and why it shows up all weird like that?<b><font color="green">[[User:Yamakiri|Yamakiri</font><font color="blue"><sup>[[User talk:Yamakiri|T]]</sup></font><sub>[[Special:Contributions|<font color="orange">C]]</sub> {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}•{{subst:CURR]]

I put in this
<b><font color="green">[[User:Yamakiri|Yamakiri]]</font><font color="blue"><sup>[[User talk:Yamakiri|T]]</sup></font><sub>[[Special:Contributions|<font color="orange">C]]</sub> {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}-{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}-{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}•{{subst:CURRENTHOUR}}:{{subst:CURRENTMINUTE}}{{subst:CURRENTSECOND}}
--Yamakiri
Make sure you have your preferences set to raw signature. I think that's what you are doing wrong. Also, you might want to consider toning it down a bit - long, complicated signatures are frowned upon. Raul654 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried to followed you're advice (though this one was manually signed), now it says I have an invalid Raw Signature, is it the dot between the time and day?YamakiriTC 2007-09-25•21:51:25
I just had a brilliant idea! You know how people have those things called subpages? Well I just put two and two together!

(Yes, I asked last month if Wikipedia supported JavaScript, and they said no, so it's just a joke)

<script language="javascript" type="text/Javascript>
     alert("Subpage + subst: = Sig!");
</script>

I can do that can't I? I'll try it. YamakiriTC 2007-09-26 • 01:00:25

Sistine Chapel[edit]

Thanks for your help and advice, Mark! I really appreciate it. When they sttarted restoring that ceiling, I had a pretty ominous feeling, because of what had happened with the "Last Supper". But the ceiling was obviously far more robust, it had been painted by a technical perfectionist, not a mad scientist, after all. When the dirt came off, it looked quite lovely..... Because James Beck and I have disagreed over a few things in the past, I thought initially that he was just flapping around making noises. (I know a fair bit about conservation practice and proceedures, both ethical and fraudulent) I came at that article with an open mind and it wasn't really until I started writing that I looked at the details. I was aghast at what I saw.

Amandajm 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link on main page[edit]

Did you now that Sep 27 entry has a link to the Smallville Disambiguation rarther than the T.V series. Buc 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TFA[edit]

I am still having problems with the request page, and the fact that you can only have five requests. I have for the past few weeks missed the gap where my request (CM Punk) can fit in. Instead of extending it to ten, could you put hide tags so it looks like this (note you will only see it when editing this section).


What do you think? Davnel03 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong[edit]

Can you think of something to do about Ryulong? You promoted him in questionable circumstances, so I see this as your mess to clean up. I realize that crats haven't traditionally been thought of as being "responsible" for the editors they promote, but I'm starting to think maybe they should be. Friday (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you check out these sockpuppets?[edit]

The users Southnepara07, Goerge976, and Airforce24345 appear to be sockpuppets. Could you possibly find out what IP they run from and block that IP? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Southnepara07 came from 158.123.160.2, Goerge976 from 70.117.9.5, and Airforce24345 from 64.4.164.82. None of these IPs are used by any other logged-in users. Raul654 15:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1981 Irish hunger strike[edit]

The memorial was basically the best image I could come up with that looked reasonable at 100px. They didn't allow generally cameras inside the prison for security reasons, and although there are a couple of surreptitiously taken photos of the hunger strikers they aren't great quality and definitely wouldn't look good at 100px, and wouldn't be free anyway. A television film crew did film the members of the first hunger strike in 1980, and there's various stills such as this, but again it wouldn't be free. The only other alternative I can think of is using a clipped version of one of the murals such as Image:Hunger Strikers.jpg, which I removed during the FAC nomination due to the freedom of panorama problem. One Night In Hackney303 19:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Israel FAC[edit]

How far have you gotten with my advice? Raul654 19:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't heard much about Tiamut's objections recently. The other items, in my opinion, were already addressed at the time of your first comment. A few things have appeared on the talk page, however – namely #Why now?, regarding the intro, and Talk:Israel#Gilabrand.27s_recent_changes, regarding some changes a day or two ago. I don't know what to make of the current situation. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so far so good. Concentrate on Tony's objections. Raul654 01:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What have I missed? I have responded to each of his objections by either complying with them or explaining why they are not needed (often because they are a matter of preference). -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied on Tariqabjotu's talk page. Raul654 04:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

One edit including a citation and you fully protect the page claiming POV edits? Given the edit history log, it's clear that the POV abuser is you. The idea that scientists who question the dogma of Global Warming are all in the pay of oil companies is farcical. Clashwho 20:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

B Henry main page[edit]

Since this is going on main page soon, and no-one replied on talk page, I'd prefer to have the other image featured, as usually you don't pick the image which is on the template anyway? He's mostly remembered from his murder, and it's the only image that illustrates it. Well, it is a colour image, although it is larger vertically.. Just asking if it's worth to change. Thanks. --Pudeo 21:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney Main Page article[edit]

The featured article paragraph for October 2 on this article has a bad wikilink. I can't change it so I hope you can. Thanks. JRG 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is seriously wonky[edit]

Here, people are clearly interpreting the TFA requests intro to suggest that if you don't have a date, you can't make a request. Surely that's not fair. Marskell 10:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help![edit]

It was very foolish of me to put up so many articles at a time! As has been suggested by Giano and others.. There has been so many suggestions for improvement that I can't keep up with them, even with some wonderful help! I nneed to withdraw some of the pages, that are not prooceding so ffast or tha have more workk to do than others ( at the risk of upsetting people who are slaving away fixing links and so on). but I'm not suure how to go about withdrawing them! Got to do some real life things as well! Amandajm 14:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yoo Hoo! (yeah, I'm Australian) How about we withdraw all the articles except Leonardo da Vinci (because I don't want to disappoint anyone) and Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes because I think it's probably just about right. Do the others get safely archived, because there are some really good suggestions for improvement that I don't want to lose track of? I'll get back to the others at leisure. ; ) Amandajm 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I figured nine concurrent nominations was too much, but I wanted to let you arrive at that conclusion on your own. I'll take care of it momentarily. Raul654 01:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming[edit]

Howdy, I've unprotected and reprotected Global Warming. You doing an excellent job with the project and I am very impressed, so I strive when my work does not take a bunch of my time, that I can get into content areas as much as I want to. However, may I ask one thing, that you refrain from using administrative abilities in Global Warming? Very respectfully, Navou banter 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I will continue to use my administrative powers on global warming as I see fit. That article attracts a lot of troublemakers and I am not going to turn a blind eye to it. Raul654 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You're locking articles that you're edit warring in. That's clearly not OK. ~ UBeR 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverting someone else's bad edits - be they flatly factually wrong, flatly contravene the manual of style, or just plain vandalism - does not an edit war make. Raul654 20:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Those are ok, however, if I observe you use the tools in a dispute, I may block your editing or open an RFC. Please be more careful with the use of tools where you are heavily involved in content discussions. Regards, Navou banter 21:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dang[edit]

Dang. Thanks for the fix; you'd think I'd know how to do that by now. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Can an article appear on the Main Page (as Today's Featured Article) more than once? The article in question is Joshua A. Norton. See [19]; this was the version of the article when it was promoted in January 2004. Paulh2 and I rewrote the article and brought it to FA. I think the present version looks completely different than the old version from 2004. I'm asking because I think this article would be great for April Fools' Day. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made it my goal of not running the same article twice. Personally, I want Lick Me in the Ass by Mozart to be our April Fools article :) Raul654 02:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, okay. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

*splorf*[edit]

Thanks pal. Now I have to wipe a glass of milk off my monitor... [20] Raymond Arritt 03:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raul654. Melsaran (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC for Dartmouth College[edit]

Hi, Raul --

Is there any reason why Dartmouth College hasn't been promoted yet (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dartmouth College)? The discussion has been sitting unaltered for five days now with three "supports" in addition to my original nomination. Currently, it's all support and no unaddressed concerns remain (though there were plenty to go around).

If it just fell between the cracks for some reason, I'd appreciate it if you gave it a once-over and got it moving on its way, wherever you feel it needs to go. Thanks. Dylan 22:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User name smiles[edit]

Glad to make you smile with my silly user name... curious as to why you titled that talk page section "Nick" though... Melty girl 18:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nick" as in nickname. Raul654 18:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Aha! --Melty girl 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the encouragement! I've honestly gotten more positive feedback on this article than negative. But damn, the repeat vandalism is annoying, probably moreso than the notion that any mention of a company must be advertising!--Mike Searson 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rob Malda.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Rob Malda.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Melodifestivalen[edit]

Could you close the FAC nomination please? After I started the nom, the League of Copyeditors began copyediting it, and because of that now's probably not the best time for it to be there. Thanks. Chwech 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 05:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Main page image for intelligent design[edit]

Any ideas what will work for a main page image on October 12? Would either the photo of William Dembski or Richard Dawkins be adequate for that in your judgment? ... Kenosis 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I considered those, but neither of them are related closely enough to ID to merit a mention in the main page blurb. Having a picture of either of them would simply confuse readers.
I hit on this very point at the end of July when I posted on the talk page asking for image suggestions, and nobody came up with one. If ID had a logo (or the DI itself) that we could use, I'd be all for it, but for now, I don't see any images that should go in the main page blurb. Raul654 05:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson[edit]

I believe that you are responsible for selecting this article as an FA. I put up the original AfD on this crude puff piece but it was removed. Where does it say in any policy that an article featured on the main page cannot be the subject of an AfD? Albatross2147 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your not the first person who has tried AFDing today's featured article. No such nomination has ever been successful (In fact, now that I think about it, nobody has ever successfully nominated any featured article for deletion, Nude celebrities on the Internet not withstanding) I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but you're wrong, and if you proceed with it, your AFD nomination will not be successful. Chances if someone sees the daily featured article and thinks it should be deleted, he's almost certainly wrong. Put simply, deletion-worthy articles don't get that far.
So, to answer your question, we don't allow AFD nominations on the daily featured article because to do so would be to invite havoc. It makes Wikipedia look bad to have AFD tags on the featured article, and most of the time they are put there because of vandalism or breaching experiments. I don't know if that's written down anywhere, but that's just the way it is. Raul654 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Albatross is still asking the admin who closed Ernest Emerson to overturn and reinstate the AFD, and it is still being tagged as an advert. Good old mainpage. I tried to clean up that horrid South Park article, but it's one of those articles that doesn't attract stable editing/editors. Shows like that remind me of why I don't watch TV, even when it's not competing with the playoffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Emerson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
AFD was closed and FAR was opened. Raul654 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
This place is exhausting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[21][edit]

Hi — I'm puzzled by your edit linked above; according to its history, this middot template is almost a year old, its use appears to be established in numerous places and the rationale for it on its page seems sensible. Please enlighten. Thanks, Sardanaphalus 11:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons - Primarily because I don't really see how it's any different than that we currently have, but more importantly because it makes the page more complicated and harder to maintain. The vast majority of changes to the text (by character length) are me updating it to add new articles, and so any changes like this impact on me particularly. Raul654 05:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was prompted to make the change as the line wrapping looked a little odd and I'd seen this template that appeared to be a tailor-made solution. Sorry to've perturbed your system. Sardanaphalus 09:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PMA and WIAFA[edit]

He's just added the dispute tag to the criteria. Sigh. It's an on-going campaign to take a shot at the MoS whenever possible. Marskell 13:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats?[edit]

Hi Raul (and possibly any other admins watching :-). Re "alex" the t:GW anon, could you take a look at his talk page [22] for a possible legal-threats problem. Though I'm never sure how seriously these should be taken William M. Connolley 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those are legal threats, but JoshuaZ already took care of it. Raul654 05:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that William M. Connolley 15:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out my monobook![edit]

Take a look at my monobook.js! I've been compiling from different users and scripts I've found. You can take a look at User:Yamakiri on Firefox/monobook.js or add importscript('User:Yamakiri on Firefox/monobook.js'); though, most people choose not to paste an import of another user's monobook for security reasons (JavaScript cookies). YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 10-2-2007 • 22:47:40 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know you could include another users's monobook settings like that.
But it's neither here nor there, because I don't use monobook. I prefer classic skin (one of the last...). But at least I convinced Brion make sure that oversight works in non-monobook skins :) Raul654 05:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

trying to reach out...[edit]

Hi Mark,

I've been trying to reach you via your email address @comcast.com but its been failing.

Is there a way I can reach you and respond to your email to me re: Musopen.com

-Aaron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic5227 (talkcontribs) 00:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. Is it going through or bouncing? I checked my spam filter on the off chance it's the former, but I didn't see any legit emails (My spam filter is very good - I've never had a false positive in 4 years).
Regardless, I check this page very often - many times per day. So you can communicate (nonprivately) with me here. Otherwise, you can try my University email address: markpell at udel.edu
I prefer to keep Wikipedia stuff off of that account, but this is an exceptional case. Raul654 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Philly meetup #5[edit]

Please look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 5 and give your input about the next meet-up. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia/Philadelphia meet-up invite list. BrownBot 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

April Fool's day 2008[edit]

I know that it's six months away, but could you possibly put Toledo War on hold for that day. Frankly, I think that would be a good article for April Fool's Day, not believing it myself. The Placebo Effect 22:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of 207.250.84.10[edit]

I've reversed your block of the above IP. You may wish to review our blocking policy, as there was nothing appropriate about this block. No warnings, no communication, no POV pushing (your reason for the block), and certainly nothing remotely warranting a block. If you disagree with somebody's edit, discuss it. Do not revert them and block them; this was not vandalism. - auburnpilot talk 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't look at his edits all that hard.
His edits calling an Inconvenient Truth controversial have been reverted many times [23] [24] from that article. His edits to The 11th Hour (a movie about the generally bad shape of the environment) make his POV pushing even more clear - he adds a criticism section sourced exclusively to a well known contrarian (falsely labelling him one of Greenpeace's cofounders) [25], and then deletes criticisms of that contrarian.
I am going to be keeping an eye on him, and if I see any more edits of this sort, I will be reblocking him. In the future, you should do a modicum of investigating before reversing another admin's block. Raul654 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I actually did review his edits before reversing the block, and the fact remains, you didn't even attempt to explain to him the problem. We have standard warnings for a reason, but when they don't apply, you are still expected to warn a user if they are violating policy. Blocking somebody without an explanation serves no purpose other than punishment; if they don't know what they did wrong, they'll continue after the block. This is especially true of disputes related to content and neutral point of view issues. - auburnpilot talk 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a great example of wikipedia bias. Raul, you of all people shouldn't be blocking someone because of POV pushing. Pot, this is Kettle. Your Black. Also, as far as the "co-founder" thing, you would think that if Greenpeace listed Moore as a Co-Founder... we would hate to disagree with the accuracy of Greanpeace, now wouldn't we[26]? But then again, its pretty typical to shut up the decenting view in the Global Warming articles, isn't it?--68.115.80.156 23:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The Greenpeace International web site used to include Moore in their list of founders.[10] However, there is some controversy over whether Moore was a co-founder, or merely an early member, of Greenpeace. His claim of being a founding member is supported by Paul Watson[11] but disputed by other founders including Dorothy Stowe, Bob Hunter (deceased), Ben Metcalf (deceased), Dorothy Metcalf, and Jim and Marie Bolen,[12] and is at odds with his original Greenpeace membership application. - Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Raul654 00:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Patrick Moore's history as a co-founder of Greenpeace includes his attendance at the planning sessions for the first voyage against US nuclear testing in 1971, sailing as a member of the crew on the first voyage, and serving 15 years in the top committee of Greenpeace, the last seven years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International. - You forgot this part, from the same wiki article. Are you stating then that what was on Greanpeace's website about Their own founders was incorrect? such a thing can be considered rather... controversial.--207.250.84.10 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

5-article limit[edit]

What's with the 5-article limit on Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests? It'd make more sense to limit it to 30-days (2-weeks, whatever)in the future. Here's the problem. Right now there are 5 articles listed going to Nov 2nd, but UserDarthgriz98 wants to list one for Oct 31 (not halloween related), but technically she can't. Carried out, people could list things for next year and block listings for the immediate future.Rlevse 16:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is limited both ways - requests must be for a date in the next 30 days. And because I don't want the page to balloon back up to 200 requests, I've limited it to 5. The big, bolded text at he top of the page - Date requests must be for dates within the next thirty days that have not yet been scheduled. There may be no more than five requests on this page at any time - makes this clear. So no, people cannot list things for next year (until December rolls around). Raul654 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So if there are legit requests for the current 30 days, all at the end of the period, they can't submit one? That's simply not right.Rlevse 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The alternative (that there is no limit) means the requests page will balloon back up to 200 requests, and that's simply not acceptable. The system's not perfect, but it meets everyone's needs. If someone has to wait until a request gets fulfilled or removed to make another one, I consider that an acceptable trade-off. Raul654 16:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mayr.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Mayr.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Calliopejen1 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose and support[edit]

As I'm sure you know some users will sometimes express "Weak oppose" and "Weak support" for FA nominations. When come to promoting and failing nomination do you actually treat these any diffrently from normal oppose and support? Buc 19:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to give them less weight in my decision to promote/archive/restart/leave it up. Raul654 21:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Check?[edit]

Raul, I can't get past the instructions at the checkuser page; are you able to look at this one? AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs) has been blocked several times for copyright violations (not to mention general disruption) on all of the Wolff family articles (Michael Wolff, Alex Wolff, Nat Wolff, Polly Draper, The Tic Code, The Naked Brothers Band, etc.) Annie hasn't returned since her last block. NakedBros1 (talk · contribs) is making the same sorts of copyvios (uploading images and copying entire media articles into Wiki) on the same series of articles. (Wish I could get away from these juvenile tic-related articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they match. Raul654 00:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thought so; what do I do next? Should I go back to the original blocking admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
user:Sarah took care of it [27]. Speaking of which, did you watch South Park last night? I saw you edited the article. Raul654 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't watch that kind of TV, especially not with the baseball playoffs on, but I did try to keep the article in shape (not easy). Thanks for the tip; I was able to add in the TSA press releases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Aww, you missed a good one :( - and, IMO, it wasn't all that offensive to people with Tourette's. Personally, I *CAN'T WAIT* for Drawn Together in an hour or so :) Raul654 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't trust the TSA much, but according to their press release, they agreed it wasn't so bad. It didn't raise a fuss at all in the TS community, so either it wasn't bad, or we're so used to it, it's just another coprolalia cheap trick :-) I don't watch TV, *you* missed some great baseball :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blurb tweak[edit]

Thanks for tweaking the blurb. Sorry to request it in the wrong place; if there are instructions about where to do so, I missed them. And above all, thank you for choosing to run Orion (mythology).

Did someone suggest it? I was not planning to request it run until May 11 next; that being Ovid's date for discussing Orion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, nobody suggested it. Raul654 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag approved bots[edit]

Hi Raul, since I noticed that you appear to be online right now, would you mind helping me by working through the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Approved list and flagging the approved bots? There's a backlog of 4 now and I'd like to get started with using my recently approved one while it's still the weekend. Thanks, --CapitalR 19:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sweet page[edit]

Hello Raul, just happened to stumble upon this! Some top quality stuff there! I'll enjoy reading more of your Wikipedia policies, if you have time to write them. *wink* Phgao 08:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Main page suggestion[edit]

Chess has appeared on the main page, but not for 3.5 years. It has a nice international appeal. Just a thought. --Dweller 08:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Grawp has resurfaced on another wiki[edit]

Hi there, I am in a quandary. There have been changes made to two articles on the Arpetan wikipedia by a user whose edit summaries suggest it is the same person as User:Grawp. The problem is I don't know how to alert any admins on the Arpetan wikipedia so I thought I would ask you because you banned Grawp. The links are here. Thanks Green Giant 10:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Arpetan has two administrators - Akarige and ChrisPtDe. Their talk pages are here and here. If it's Grawp, you'll probably need a checkuser on Arpetan. I doubt that Arpetan has an arbcom and/or that it has any checkusers, so they'll need a steward. Raul654 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
PS - I've dropped a message on those pages. Raul654 18:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Much appreciated. :) Green Giant 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives[edit]

Hello. The article Night of the Long Knives will be tomorrow's featured article, and due to its "hot-button" topic matter (Nazism), I think that it should be semi-protected for the next day or so. I and others put a lot of work into to making it comprehensive and neutral, and I see it's been anonymously vandalized in the last few days a couple times. I was thinking it should probably go into semi-protected mode before it hits the main page tomorrow. Thanks.--Mcattell 18:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus v. Compromise[edit]

I reverted the edit which contained 'buttocks' as opposed to the last version. I implied that his compromise of buttocks was not the same as reaching consensus so I reverted it - but made NO changes. You seem to have used your edit summary as an attempt to not only revert my edit, but to place "ass" back into the article. Your edit summary is not consistent with the rollback I made. Try not to use my simple reversion for any particular agenda as your edit summary is misleading and clearly an excuse to re-insert a term which you find to be more correct. I simply reverted 'buttocks,' and that was the extent of it. the_undertow talk 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see - I think I misread your diff. Apologies - I've put it back to your compromise version. Raul654 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Note that this is the "arse" version, the compromise version is this. I'm not sure you intentionally reverted to the "arse" version? Melsaran (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, it's just not my day. I'll give it another try. Raul654 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I got it right this time -- back to the compromise version. I thought it was undertow who did it, but I was wrong - obviously I misread the diffs. Raul654 19:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)::I appreciate that. I was simply trying to show the editor that 'buttocks' was not part of the consensus debate, so although it's nice to compromise, it's better to come to a consensus, so I simply just reverted his edit to whatever version existed before. the_undertow talk 19:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Activity[edit]

Okay, I've moved you to the active list, so you will be active for all future cases. Tell me if you'd like to be activated for the cases already in progress and I'll do that too. Picaroon (t) 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FA review question[edit]

Should an editor who is the subject of an open RFC be involved with an FA candidate nominated by someone who has left comments on that person's RFC? I personally see it as inappropriate as a bit of a COI issue, but see no guideline at the FA candidate page on the subject. Any guidance would be great. Thank you. Aboutmovies 23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Judge the article and the feedback comments, not the editors. Short of an arbcom ban, I don't have a problem with anyone participating on the FAC. Raul654 02:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel[edit]

Thanks, Raul! it was just a typo, that I had then copied and pasted!

I've done masses of work on Leonardo and I'm sorry that Whatsisface and Winklepicker didn't get back to check through their very long list of suggested improvements (which were nearly all done) before it was archived. (I think that providing page numbers for 150 refernces is overkill). I'll have to put it up again. I wish that this blinking computer didn't lumber along so slowly, doing anything takes ages!

If you want a laugh, take a look at the pic that someone put up on Sistine Chapel ceiling. I've transferred it to the talk page, as it was too good to delete. ;-) Amandajm 03:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

About Leonardo - take a couple weeks, make sure it's all polished up, then feel free to renominate it. There's no penalty for failure, so feel free to try again.
That talk-page picture is very amusing :) Raul654 03:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that the article on "Truthiness" is to "Today's featured article" on October 18. However, when it was put up for nomination for "Today's featured article", it asked to be displayed on October 17, to coincide with second anniversary of the creation of the term and of The Colbert Report. Can I ask why it has been put back a day please? ISD 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A simple mistake on my part. I've fixed it. Raul654 13:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much[edit]

WikiThanks.png Thanks very much for all your work on FAs and for scheduling Larrys Creek for October 19, 2007 (now I don't have to argue that Nov. 5th, the date of the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix and when the creek was purchased by Pennsylvania from the Iroquois, is relevant to the article). I will be double checking all the refs and making sure it is well up to snuff before the big day arrives. Please accept this WikiThanks as a small token of my sincere appreciation, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming wikibreak for the FAC bot[edit]

I expect to be offwiki for while beginning the 14th. If you could, could you close a bunch of FACs on the 13th or by about mid-day 14th? The bot may be out for a week or two. Gimmetrow 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Can you give me another reminder on the 12th? Raul654 01:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Reminder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll also be traveling between (roughly, not sure yet) the 18th and the 22nd, and will probably have slow dialup access until the 23rd, so can you do the next batch (after the 14th) on the 17th so I botify them manually before I travel? If you promote that weekend (October 19-21), I won't be able to get to all of them on a slow connection. Yomangani knew how to help manually, but he's gone. I'll see if FVasconcellos can help out in the bot's absence, and I can keep up with the FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Inactive Oppose vote[edit]

A user has made an Oppose vote on a FAC I'm currently working on. I've tried to address the issue he pionted out however he said that they were "just some examples" so there may be other problem with the article that he wants to piont out. However he has been inactive for the last three day so I don't know what other problems he may have. There are also some pionts I can't address until he has replied to comments I've left.

How will you treat this Oppose vote if they remain inactive? Buc 07:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness as TFA[edit]

Could you wait with featuring this article for the April 1, 2008 mainpage instead of running it on October 17, 2007? There is discussion about what article to use for the April Fool's Main Page, and several people have suggested using this article. Thank you! Royalbroil 12:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that October 17 was the anniversary of the first usage. Nevermind - run it as planned. Royalbroil 14:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Best feature date for Plug-in hybrid: October 29th[edit]

I spoke with Allison Takahashi at Toyota about the date that they will unveil their production plug-in Prius which as speculated in the Japanese business press, is expected at the Tokyo Motor Show this month. Toyota has just today announced they will be showing a concept plug-in car and truck, but remain coy about the plug-in Prius, saying only that Priuses will be shown. (On the other hand, some automotive press suggests that the concept car is the successor to the Prius.[28][29][30]) Allison wasn't able to tell me outright, but in discussing generalities it became crystal clear that if it were to be announced, it would certainly be on Monday, October 28th 29th. Correcting for the late time zone in Japan, that would suggest the next day would be most appropriate.

There are already five outstanding date requests, the earliest of which is October 31st, but Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 30, 2007 is at present blank. So, in hopes that the much earlier request for the date range to feature Plug-in hybrid on the front page may allow for an exception, I throw this request upon your mercy. Beamrunner 18:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put the lead in front-page format in Talk:Plug-in hybrid/Feature. Beamrunner 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah! The 28th is a Sunday, I meant the day after Monday, which is the 30th. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 30, 2007 Beamrunner 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BN discussion[edit]

Raul, there's ongoing discussion at WP:BN about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cobi. An uninvolved 'crat's comment or action would be useful. Cheers.--chaser - t 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot Post[edit]

Just wanted to give you a +1 insightful for your post ([31]) in the discussion about whether Wikipedia has peaked or not. Definitely some interesting stuff there. JKBrooks85 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Raul654 20:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your thoughts are interesting. However, I think it is somewhat implausible to explain a drop of 3000 registrations per day solely in terms of vandal prevention. That's a quite large number, and my impression is that we were never fighting dozens of very large sock farms each day. Also, we were already throttling at 10 registrations per IP per day. However, maybe vandal prevention is part of it (though not if the increasing reversion rate is relevant). Lastly, let me say: I am not a dragonfly. Dragons flight 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have a hard time telling you and user:DragonflySixtyseven apart. Raul654 21:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


New York City Meetup[edit]

The Brooklyn Bridge New York City Meetup


Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area
Last: 8/12/2007
This box: view  talk  edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative histories, eh?[edit]

Pretty cool. What kinds do you like? 204.52.215.107 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Alternatehistory.com/discussion. It's a great AH community. JKBrooks85 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of alternate history, per se, although I do have a Harry Turtledove book or two around. I have that comment on my userpage because it cracked me up when I read it :) Raul654 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Back for another go under another name, but...[edit]

...I may be having Windows Explorer issues. Since I started editing again, I can't seem to get the confirmation to come through on my e-mail. You were there for me from the get-go; I'm hoping you can help a brother again. Hoping you get this message sooner than later since you seem to be doing some "whack-a-vandal" work on the blocked user page. I hope to high heaven I don't have to log on to the old Lucky 6.9 account. That name gives me chills after all I've been through here. I don't even like associating myself with the name anymore, but here I must in order to get this thing working correctly. Anyway, take care. If you still happen to have my e-mail address on file, it's the same as before. It's also on my new profile assuming you can access it. Talk to ya soon, Mark. --PMDrive1061 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design[edit]

Just curious as to why you reversed my minor edit to the ID page. I thought it was more accurate given the statement cited to state that the leaders of the ID movement are members of the think-tank, and not the "major proponents". I'm not mad, just curious as to why it was changed. Alaffin 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for recommending I be unblocked. I greatly appreciate it. Best, Johntex\talk 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Email[edit]

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Edit to ID[edit]

Hmmm, I simply don't like the weasel wording here per WP:AWW. It might be better to simply split the sentences, saying that the "Discovery Institute is the backbone of the movement" and that "Primary proponents believe the designer to be God" rather than trying to string all that together. There is not necessarily a one-to-one relation to which proponents are being discussed in the different sources. -- 67.98.206.2 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"All" is not a weasel word - it's heavily cited. Your propose to split the sentence into two sentences that do not actually say the same thing as the original sentence. This is not acceptable. Raul654 17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, and WP:SYNTH is? There's no one source which conveys everything you are trying to have the sources say. BTW, you should review Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. -- 67.98.206.2 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes." - Barbara Forrest Doesn't get much more clear than that. Also note that this conversation should probably be conducted on Talk:Intelligent design Raul654 20:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I know about the protection policy - I wrote it. ID is a controversial topic and is getting substantially more edits than almost any other daily FA, making it hard to sort out vandalisms, well-intentioned-but-deterimental edits, etc. Raul654 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
(a) this is a primary, not secondary source, and even worse, it's a spontaneous declaration by one person during court testimony, who is best known as a critic on this topic and of that institute and thus all the more likely to paint with broad brush. And (b) the gloss you support doesn't use the word "leaders" but "prominent" and there's assuredly a difference.
BTW, excellent policy. Not the first time I've had to cite it this week by any means.[32] -- 67.98.206.2 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

Cheers for putting in the correct link for that poll. Sad mouse 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

David Shear[edit]

I'm trying to confirm info on David Shear. Despite all the info on his user page, I haven't found much info on him. I found a listing for the person I guess is his son at U of Texas Austin (Jason Shear) and one page listing David as working with the Stanton Research Group at http://research.cm.utexas.edu/jstanton/members.htm. Can you ask his sister to provide more info and a link to an obit?--Alabamaboy 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See my previous edit
I got an email from his daughter (or, I suppose if you want to be really skeptical - someone claiming to be): David Shear was my father, and he did indeed die on April 21 of this year. It's fine to post his death, though we prefer and know he would have prefered direct language instead of euphemism. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to prove the fact of his death. There was a short notice in the Austin newspaper, but I can't find it online. What do you suggest? I told her I'd take her word for it, restored the section on the deceased Wikipedians page, and told her to expand it if she wants to. Raul654 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This death report raises very serious questions. Please note Special:Contributions/David Shear which reflects recent edits by this user, including in areas of his interest and with edit summaries in a style he has previously used. The fact that the report of his death was posted to his userpage as the sole contribution of User:Buzzardcheater is also extremely questionable. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, now that's very interesting... I'll look into it later tonight. (I have guests over). Raul654 22:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, did you misread the contribs list? Looks like 8 October 2006, not 2007. Or am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, yes, I did. *embarrassed* Newyorkbrad 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's all right - I made exactly the same mistake when reading a log file yesterday. Raul654 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's a link to his son's page while this appears to be his wife. I'll e-mail them and ask for info on his death, assuming that's not a violation of privacy or anything. Or would someone else prefer to contact them?--Alabamaboy 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. I'd like to hear from them, but I would find it a bit awkward. Raul654 23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm David Shear's daughter, and as I mentioned to Raul654, I don't know how to prove the fact of his death (or my own identity for that matter), other than sending a copy of the death certificate. There was a short obituary in the Austin newspaper, but I can't find it in their archive online. I spoke to my brother this evening and told him that this conversation is happening. I don't think he'd object if an editor contacted him at his UT email address if that would help clear things up. We don't know why Buzzardcheater posted the notice in the first place, since we're sure he's not a family member or close friend - no one who knew David well would ever think that he'd want the term "passed away" used regarding him. Thanks. Kaachan 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm comfortable letting this be the official announcement. The info on David's user page ties in with verifiable information (such as his son and wife teaching at U of T Austin). I have no reason to doubt this information and believe we can put it on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. I'll work something up based on his bio info in the next few days.--Alabamaboy 15:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a clarification that it's his son and *daughter-in-law* who work at UT, not his *wife*. Kaachan 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

James Milner FAC[edit]

Hi there -- I've a question regarding the said FAC. Specifically, this edit. The history of my contributions to that page is rather protracted, but suffice to say I've tried my best to keep tabs on the situation ever since I cast oppose and provided my reasons. In fact you'd see that I've had plenty to say on the FAC. The nominator has been overzealous in my opinion in making me change my mind about my oppose vote, and the latest is striking out my oppose vote. My question therefore, is: (1) is this allowed, whether ethically or as a policy breach; and (2) if yes, whether there was any merit in doing so. Thanks. Chensiyuan 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's OK for someone (e.g, the nominator/person fixing the objections) to note below the objection that he thinks it has been addressed, but striking out should only be left to the person making the objection. Raul654 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, User:Bole2 has a bit of history of doing that - he's edited the times of existing messages he left on my talk page. Not good. The Rambling Man 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think he does that, TRM, to "bump" the message and nudge people to respond. Unsubtle, but not as worrying as striking other peoples' opposes. --Dweller 21:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Challange[edit]

"I am often worried at the thought that my life is based to such a large extent on the work of my fellow human beings and I am aware of my great indebtedness to them."

Good luck, Mercury 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

MFD[edit]

Why do you want to "speedily keep" this page while no substantial arguments have been presented? How does letting the discussion run a little longer harm the project? Melsaran (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because as others have said, it serves a demonstrable purpose in improving the encyclopedia. To which you responded - so what? Unless you can do better than "I think this should be deleted", it's staying put. Raul654 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I said that they don't need a bureaucratic system to improve the encyclopaedia. I provided substantial arguments in favour of deleting the page, and the only argument the "keep" voters had was "the WikiProject is successful, don't argue with them", which did not address my concerns in the nomination. Instead of closing the debate early, why don't you just let it run? How does that harm the encyclopaedia? Discussion is good. Melsaran (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It's trolling. Your reasons were totally insubstantive, and amounted to nothing more than "I think this is bureaucratic and unnecessary". Others - like the ones who actually make use of that project - disagree. The onus is on you to show that they are wrong, not vice versa. Raul654 21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to show that they were wrong, but you didn't give me the opportunity to, as you felt it would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia to leave the debate open for more than an hour. Please assume good faith and stop accusing me of "trolling" when I merely try to engage in a discussion. Melsaran (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, unproductive discussion. --Agüeybaná 21:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is assuming good faith here, as in my opinion, nominating for deletion a page in which are discussed improvements for the project is really disruptive - and that's for sure not good faith. So Melsaran, you're not in the position to acuse Raoul of not assuming good faith! --Eurocopter tigre 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rob-B-Hood[edit]

Done, and thanks for your note, Raul. Crushingly busy with clients this time of year, so I suppose that nominators are pleased not to be pestered as much about 1a. Hope to make amends soon. Tony (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC[edit]

Hi Mark - I don't understand what happened in the closing of this FAC, and respectfully suggest that it was premature. We were in the process of addressing concerns that editors and reviewers raised, when we were beset a long day with three sockpuppets (all of one banned user) who made extensive comments that we were responding to (until they were identified, one at a time, as socks) and were getting back to deal with comments by legitimate FA reviewers like SandyGeorgia when we were beset by another editor, new to the encyclopedia, who is a self-identified political opponent to the subject of our article. Some of his comments were partisan and extremely POV, and it was pretty clear that some were incorrect obstacles being thrown in the path so that the article would not be promoted. Nonetheless, we were trying to address any legitimate issues that he raised, and waiting for the reviewers who had initially commented to see if their concerns were met, when the FAC was preemptorily closed. I never even had a chance to explicitly indicate my support of the nomination, although I assume that was obvious - other editors said they would re-consider their initial postings if and when we met concerns, and the primary editor of this article, Wasted Time R, had said yesterday that he'd be unavailable over the weekend, but would pick up afterward . I see at least 15-20 other FACs that have been active for a longer time than ours, and no timeframe given in the instructions. I also see no summary, no discussion, not even a reason given for the close to help us in future noms - unless I am looking in the wrong place. We were actively working with the reviewers and I'd like to respectfully request that it be re-opened and let us complete the process in a normal way. This feels like we were hijacked - if the end result is the same, so be it - but I think we should be given more time on this large, high-profile article's nomination. Thanks for any insights you can give me about this process. Tvoz |talk 06:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That nomination page is too convoluted - I can't make heads or tails out of it. Go ahead and start a new FAC nomination, and make sure to link to the old page (so people can see the old objections and decide if they are still relavant). Raul654 06:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Raul![edit]

... for your help and support with Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes. Amandajm 07:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Raul654 15:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!![edit]

My wife says thanks too... the baby would say thanks to Uncle Mark, but is not out of the womb yet :-) 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just remember: fooling around on the computer while your wife is in labor = bad idea :) Raul654 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2: Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm[edit]

Putting here since it was booted off. This is importnant!!Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ngo Dinh Diem

The Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm, then president of South Vietnam, marked the culmination of a successful coup d'état led by General Duong Van Minh in November 1963. On the morning of November 2, 1963, Diem and his adviser and younger brother Ngo Dinh Nhu were arrested after the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) had been successful in a bloody overnight siege on Gia Long Palace in Saigon. The coup was the end result of nine years of autocratic and nepotistic family rule in South Vietnam. Discontent with the Diem regime had been simmering below the surface, and exploded with mass Buddhist protests against long running religious discrimination after the government shooting of protesters who defied a ban on the flying of the Buddhist flag. However, when rebel forces entered the palace, the brothers were not present, as they had escaped the previous night to a loyalist shelter in Cholon. The brothers had kept in communication with the rebels through a direct link from the shelter to the palace, and misled them into believing that they were still in the palace. Soon after, the Ngo brothers agreed to surrender and were promised safe exile; after being arrested, they were instead executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by ARVN officers on the journey back to military headquarters at Tan Son Nhut Air Base. (more...)
  • Propose - Ngo Dinh Diem assassinated on this day, 34 years ago. We have never had a Vietnamese FA on the front page before, and this is an important topic, since the assassination is often considered the beggining of hte Americanization of the Vietnam War. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Although I love Borat, this article seems important in Vietnamese history, and it's the first Vietnamese FA to appear on the Main Page. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have a good encyclopedic topic on the main page as opposed to something which insulted quite a lot of people, right? ~ Riana 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Raul, throw me on the list of people who think this would be a timely choice for the main page. -- Samir 06:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - An event this significant in a nation's history is also a significant event in world history. Borat can wait. Till he becomes as 'significant' and 'relevant' to the entire world as this event. Sarvagnya 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. This is the first ever opportunity for a Vietnamese article to appear on main page. - KNM Talk 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Since we have never had a Vietnamese article on the main page, then it seems to me that this article trumps Borat for the time being! Awadewit | talk 03:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal[edit]

A few people have suggested that I should notify you of my proposal for a List of the Day on the main page that would look something like this. I would summarize my proposal as follows: 1. FLs are nominated; 2. Participants indicate which three lists they would most like to see on the main page; 3. FLs are either chosen for the main page, renominated, or failed after counting responses; 4. Chosen FLs schedule themselves for the main page. I posted this at the talk pages for WP:FL, WP:FC,WP:FLC, main page and WP:VPR. There were no responses in the first 5 or 6 hours so I contacted all persons who nominated or closed a FL discussion in Oct or Sept (40 individuals). Within a few hours I had over a dozen respondents. A day later I contacted those who closed or nominated May-Aug FL discussion making it clear that initial respondents were focusing on the consensus based selective process in my proposal versus the non-selective first in line process used at WP:POTD and your dictatorial selective process used at WP:TFA. Respondents in the second batch were more in favor of the idea. This proposal is similar to the earlier one made for TFA with a few wrinkles (that wikiproject affiliations be made clear in the nomination section to ease the burden on those voters who are only interested in certain types of articles, weighted voting, and greater administrator responsibility) The results of this proposal are far different from the earlier overwhelming rejection. At last count it was 18-15 by strict vote count. However, a consensus analysis at one point was that 18 of the first 23 respondents favor lists on the main page with 6 of those 18 against the proposal. Opposition to the proposal is based on fear that it would degrade the quality of the main page, that the voting procedure may be divisive, misleading or counterproductive. Given the concern about appearance an alternate format has been demonstrated that could probably vie for half of the WP:POTD space. Some have suggested that instead of adding a new section on the main page WP:TFA could allot a day or two a week to a list. I think it is fairly safe to assume that TFA has more than enough supply of quality articles that it will not likely be mixing in lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Italways sockpuppet[edit]

It seems User:Hugh shakespeare is a sock of Italways, basically by the quack test (same edits to the same articles), and he also created a nonsense list article List of Hahnian Organizations. I reported Hugh on ANI as a new user displaying disruptive behavior, but as it seems he's a sock and you blocked the original account, I figured I'd bring this to your attention as well. MSJapan 14:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas[edit]

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [33]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [34].

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 20:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act[edit]

Figured you might be interested, but I've totally rewritten that article. Took me two years (no kidding). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 20, 2007[edit]

Would you consider making England national rugby union team the featured article for that day? It achieved FA status in late September. The reason for this proposal is that for all us sports fans they will be appearing in the final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup against South Africa on that very day in Saint-Denis to defend their status as the champions of 2003 Rugby World Cup. It may mean bumping Enzyme kinetics, (which is excellent) back to be Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 22, 2007 instead. IchiNiSan 10:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of 199.82.243.71[edit]

What did you block this user for? His edits to [[The Great Global Warming Swindle ([35][36]) didn't seem in any way problematic. Regards, Melsaran (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, removing a link to an article (while at the same time watering down the language) is clearly problematic. Raul654 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And is that a reason to block immediately for a week without any warning at all? Melsaran (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The warning he got came in the form of his first vandalism being reverted. He went back and did it again. Raul654 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Would you consider unblocking this IP please Raul? It really was an inappropriate block for something that doesn't even look like vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
(A)Yes, that is clearly vandalism. (B) I'd be willing to unblock, provided he said he would not vandalize the article again. Raul654 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Raul, we don't work like that. What we do is warn a user, for petty vandalism like this, they often get 4 chances. You reverting it is certainly not a warning, the IP needs something on their talk page stating what they did was wrong - quite frankly, I can't believe you've blocked an IP for a week for two edits, that I'm sure some wouldn't consider vandalism and without any warning. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would really appreciate it if you could unblock this IP ASAP, this smacks of blocking an IP simply because you don't agree with them - no warnings prior, not even a block notice. If you disagree, I'll have to take it to AN/I to get a consensus to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As you've been back online and chosen not to comment, I've taken this to AN/I. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As you don't seem to want to comment futher, and comments so far at AN/I seem to be that the block was unjust - I've unblocked the IP. I would urge you to warn uses in the future prior to blocking them for questionable vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I probably would not have replied any further either, your approach to Raul on this issue was completely inappropriate. If someone is intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia after being warned they should be blocked immediately. Burntsauce 23:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There's got to be a better way[edit]

to go about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. I admit readily that I don't know the background on how this got to be the format for nominating and deciding upon TFAs, so perhaps my ignorance of that history is the reason for these observations, but the current system just seems very inefficient and difficult to work with.

  1. Why just five nominations at a time? It seems like that's just setting up a race for the next one to be removed so that editors peering at the page with their nomination can jump in before the next guy. Any reason for that?
  2. Why is the date connection so important? When I first discovered this page, that requirement jumped out as very strange to me. I had never known before (and I read the TFA a lot) that there was an intended connection there. It doesn't appear to be made explicit in any way on the Main page that the TFA is linked to that day's date, so I would imagine that most readers (like me) have no idea about the date connection. So why bother with it?
  3. Why do you personally hold such great sway in the front page process? This was another aspect of things that confuses me. Wikipedia being the consensus-based community that it is, I'm perplexed as to why a single person holds final authority over something like this.
  4. Why is there a voting process in the first place? I would think that meeting WP:WIAFA is the only criterion we need. I've seen some recent objections like "I don't think that pop culture article should be on the Main page," which seems to me very prejudicial and invalid as an objection. Isn't the concept of Wikipedia that every article, assuming it meets the criteria for having an article, is equally important to human knowledge?
  5. Further, I see that you mention that you have a small list of articles ineligible for the front page. That's fine, I'm sure there are good reasons for that, but wouldn't one conclude that that list would suffice, and that unless it was on the list, an FA would automatically eligible for the front page without the current nomination process? That is to say, if you already have control over a process marking certain FAs as unacceptable, why is another group making further judgments about article not in your "unacceptable" list? I would think that their not being on your list would make them automatically okay.

The idea that immediately jumps to mind as an alternative to the current process is simply a calendar (or something similar) in which users can nominate their FA for any specific date. This way, we can compare FAs nominated for the same date and decide via consensus which should go up. It would also permit more simultaneous nominations and eliminate the need for debating over every single one. Obviously, this sort of proposition would require a lot more development for actual implementation, but just as it exists in my mind.

Again, I realize there might have been a lot of decision-making behind these elements that I'm not aware of, so forgive me if these questions belie my ignorance of them. I also don't mean to be insulting in any way, in case anything I've said comes off as such. I'm just struck by how oddly this system operates. If nothing else, I think it could definitely use a Wikipedia:-prefix page clearly explaining the process, the reasoning, and the rationale. At present, it presents none of these in any level of depth. Dylan 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions out of order:
(3) I've been choosing them all myself since we've put featured articles on the main page. I took it upon myself to do the process since it started. That's why I have so much "sway".
(1) The requests page was originally just a plain list. (The requests page, by the way, is just that - a page of requests. I'm under no obligation to follow them) The problem was, people felt like they had to nominate every article that got promoted, so it gradually ballooned to upwards of 200 articles until - after repeated requests that someone fix it - I wiped it out. I recreated it as it now appears, with a limit on the number of requests to prevent me from having to deal with every day being requested for something which may (at best) only have a distant relation. (4) There's voting there (supporting and opposing) because people want to be able to voice an opinion on others' requests.
(2) When the requests page was restructured, a date-connection requirement as included as a way to cut down on requests that had only a distant relation to the date being requested, if at all. This has, as Marskell pointed out, had the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for articles that don't have any particular dates to get on the main page.
(5) The only FA that I would be hestitant to put on the main page is Jenna Jameson, the porn star. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that I wouldn't be comfortable putting up at some point or another.
As for your calender idea before - it's been suggested before. There are some who support it, and more people who don't. I don't want to rehash the debate. You can look through the archives and find the previous discussions. Raul654 00:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others that I wouldn't be comfortable putting up at some point or another." Hows about "Manos" The Hands of Fate??--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No to Manos? People were recently discussing Cannibal Holocaust as a possible Halloween TFA. He he. Marskell 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok now this I haveta see:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Dammit, if only Spawny and I had started buffing up Vampire about three months earlier.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FA Main Page requests?[edit]

Hmmm, is it just me or has the way of nominating FAs for the main page changed? I recently go the article André Kertész featured and I went to request that it be featured on the main page, but found there was no longer the same format. It'd be great if you could answer a couple of questions just to clarify things.

1) How would I go about nominating Andre Kertesz for the main page? 2) I don't want it featured on any specific date, but there doesn't seem to be a section for the non-specific date nominations, only specific date nominations. If this is correct, how would I go about nominating it for a non-specific date? 3) If there is no such way, how would this particular article ever get featured on the main page bar some miracle that it is ever picked (Considering there's some articles I know that have never been on the main page and they've been featured for years...). Would I ask you personally or do you plan to set up a non-specific nominations area? 4) Why only 5 nominations at a time? And why only for specific dates? It's weird.

Anyway, I also wanted to comment on the !voting system at the new nominations page - personally I think it's pointless as there's no real reason to oppose an article being on the main page at a certain date unless you want your own one to be, and if there is a real reason, I'm sure you'd be able to pick it up because you've been doing this a long time. It just gives the kinda voting side to the nominations which it doesn't need and makes the page much longer with endless "support" votes. Anyway, It'd be great if you could answer on my talk so I don't accidentally forget to check here, but it's okay if you can't. I'm worried the article I mentioned won't ever be featured on the main page with this new format and I thought you'd like some feedback on it. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Any day now. ;) Cheers, Spawn Man 08:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, ignoring me eh? ;) Seriosuly though, can you show me how I'm supposed to get an article on the main page now? Cheers, Spawn Man 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not ignoring you. I'm a procrastinator by nature, and the longer and more complicated the response I have to type, the less inclined I am to do it in a timely manner.
Your questions overlap somewhat with the one above, as well as the ones I've been answering on this page and the requests page steadily for a few weeks. So, to rehash them in short order: (1) When I redid the requests page a few weeks ago (to get rid of the giant monstrosity that was there before), there was added (by me or someone else, I cannot remember) a comment at the top that The date is highly relevant to the article when it is a significant date to the subject of the article, especially if it is a significant anniversary of the date (e.g., a 10th, 25th or 50th anniversary), or the article is relevant to a major event or well-known holiday occurring on that date.. (2) As Marskell pointed out, this had the unintended consequence of off-putting articles that had few or no relavant dates. (3) I am not happy with this situation, but do not as yet have any recommendations. However, (4) a specific-date request is not necessary to get your article on the main page. Most of the ones that go up there are not there because someone requested it for that date. As far as having only 5 nominations at a time - it's arbitrary. If the limit is anything less than hundreds, the page is going to fill up to the limit in shorter order. Then people will once again complain it's too low. So 5 seemed a simple and manageable value. Raul654 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it sort of seems unfortunate that there can be only 5 on the audition thing, because I had to put Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm right above... I hope you'll consider this quasi-out-of-process nom. It hasn't had any objections unlike Borat...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made some fairly singificant changes to the top of that page. It's still first-come-first-serve (which I'm still open to changing) but I've reworded it to make it more clear that date connections are not the only criteria. Follow up on the talk page Raul654 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So my Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm nom is still illegal? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll just ask you here like last time - I hardly ever need an article to go on a specific date and it'd be up to your discretion... Thanks for replying anyway - there's a procrastinator in all of us. :) Spawn Man 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Idea[edit]

Heyo. I apologize if this has been mentioned before, I'm just throwing it out there as an idea. Perhaps we could start working up the blurbs outside of a cluttered central requests page, but in subpages instead. For example, "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Blurbs/7 World Trade Center". It would be easier for editors collaboratively to improve the blurbs before they hit the main page. The blurbs could be categorized, for example "TFA candidates since 2005", "TFA candidates with January anniversaries", "Media TFA candidates", etc. When you selected an article for the day, you could just move the blurb subpage to "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/<chosen date>" and let a bot remove the categories and cascading protection take care of the rest.

Users would be able to advocate for their favorite featured article on the individual blurb talk pages instead of on a crowded requests page or on your personal talk page. Thoughts? ➪HiDrNick! 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but the subpages could get numerous... Spawn Man 06:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving picture[edit]

Hey Raul. Thanks for the break on TFA with Barnard's Star. (You might have noticed how annoying I've found the reasoning at the request page, however much it's simplified things.) I inserted this pic for the eighteenth and then was reverted based on this conversation. I reinserted because I think the .gif is quite small and should make no dialup issues. It's a much better 'real' pic. As I've said, some astronomical bodies are just going to be a splotch—at least a moving picture may make people pause. (This pic would be a compromise, but it's sort of cheating to use a CG image.)

This is, um, two hours away—sorry. I don't want to spend all of tomorrow arguing about an image, but I think this 'moving picture' should be OK. Marskell 21:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's a better image, we'll go with what you prefer. Raul654 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Drat. Apparently there's some concern it's not a free image, so we're left with the splotch. Marskell 07:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC Serious Concern[edit]

Update: I retract my concern. Now it is only minor. I still however believe that the suggestions provided (besides the TFA point) will increase standards for wikipedia articles. Please consider them. Leranedo 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Since you are the featured article director, I like to request to find out where I may go to put in a request to have at least three people be required to nominate an article for FAC. Furthermore, I think it's a very good idea for a FAC to first be featured on the Today's featured article. There are already 1,652 FAs. FA are only for the "very best" and we can't have crap content to show wiki users. FA should only be for the very best even if that means we have 100 great FAs. Other then that these FAC I went through are not ready for prime time. The editors obliviously do great work, but if it's honestly not ready, it definitely shouldn't be FA status. Just wait until it is ready. Thank you. Leranedo 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on recent inactionable opposes at FAC based on current article ratings and prior FACs, it is obvious this user is oblivious to this candidacy process. [37], [38], [39] ♫ Cricket02 16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
So sorry, you are mistaken. Thank you for cherry-picking my responses. Furthermore, it's not feasible to ask me to point out every single areas that is not FA quality. The nominator should be aware of areas of improvements and what FA quality article are expected to be like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles Leranedo 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to revise my responses to make you happy but after finding out you are "a member of WikiProject Musicians," I believe that your cherry-picking is biased and unreliable, and that you are only using the candidacy process to bring articles to pass FAC when they are not ready. Also considering that the articles you pointed out are musicians-related articles. Leranedo 04:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, have a FAC be featured as TFA first, eh? I will do you one better, Leranedo—I propose that Raul not pass any FAC unless it has first obtained FA-Class status. I can say without a doubt that we will never pass a non-deserving FAC again under that system. Pagrashtak 17:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is best to prevent articles that are not the very best since it is not only helpful to the wikipedia community and wikipedia as a whole, but more importantly, the students, educators, and every other users of wikipedia. Leranedo 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So I figured out my flawed assumption. Ha! Leranedo 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC Serious Concern Question[edit]

I need clarification. Initially I had the impression that if I voted yes to a FAC, it would go on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles

Then based on what others said, I assumed that the FAC would just become FA - status, but not on the FA main page, so I lowered my standards for FAC articles. However, it appears now that I was not mistaken initially. Please clarify. Learnedo 03:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The order is:
Ordinary (non-featured) article -> Featured article candidates -> Featured article status -> Main page.
I choose the featured articles from the list of current featured articles. I have decided that (until I decide otherwise) we're not going to repeat any featured articles on the main page. Does that answer your question? Raul654 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
So after a FAC gets Featured article status, is it automatically featured on the FA Main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles? And whenever featured articles are on the FA main page, how long does it stay there?
Clarification please. Learnedo 03:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) No, it is not automatic. I have to choose to put it there. (2) They stay there exactly 24 hours (Midnight UTC to midnight UTC). Raul654 14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for creating the section to test (I didn't know I could do that); I'll place it in the talk in a moment to find everything that can improve and to get feedback. Learnedo 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Greeks[edit]

Would you mind reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom? The discussion is getting very long, and I doubt there is any chance of consensus to retain. Please note that I began by defending the article, but the more I read the sources, the worse I think it; my current estimate is that it will take six editor-months to fix, if it can be done at all, and that is probably an unreasonable amount of time for it to stay on FAR or FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I also used googlebooks to check the "McEvilley" soruce. Only two of the page cites were in the accessible bit, and they didn't verify the content. I checked up the "Tarn" book also and found that around 50% of the inline refs didnt check out properly with the info. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I've been unclear: This page is now a FAR; it may be time for it to move on to FARC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I would love to discuss what refs you exactly have issues with on the FAR, and correct mistakes if there are any. PHG 05:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
My problems with this article go much deeper than any twiddling with references can resolve: in brief, the text violates WP:V by presenting one conjectural restruction of the history (there are several inconsistent ones) as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. PHG has begun to acknowledge the disagreements in the notes; but this will not be acceptable until, at a minimum, the various stories are all in the text, with due weight given to them.
Also, several of the notes PHG has added have themselves needed correction, as here and here and here. Simply reviewing all the notes will take longer than FAR should be expected to tolerate. When these things are done, it can and should be renominated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do either move this to FARC or explain why not; or else allow us to be bold and do it ourselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It will be moved tomorrow; I try to stagger them. Marskell 14:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

POV taken to the exteme[edit]

Hi! On the recommendation of indefinitely banned user User:IchiNiSan you decided to make the article on the England_national_rugby_union_team today's featured article. I'm a big rubgy fan myself, but let me say that this is one of the most sincere misjudgements I've come across on Wikipedia. Picking one of two teams in a final on the very day that final is played is a sure way to indicate that Wikipedia endorses that side. Same thing with picking a politican or a party on the day of an election. Having a rugby-related article the day the world cup is decided is a great idea and there would have been many neutral articles available. Instead, you made a choice that, I if may say so respectfully, undermines both your own credibility and, worse, the credibility of Wikipedia. I hope this was just one unlucky incident. Cheers JdeJ 09:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree (and have previously articulated) that we shouldn't be running politician's article when the election is close (I say close because it's getting to the point in the US where the presidential election begins 2 years before the election is held). Sports articles, however, are a best of a different color. I think you are making a mountain out a of molehill with this one. Raul654 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Resysopping[edit]

Hi Raul. There is an ANI thread about the sysopping of the Jbeach56 account. Thought you should know about it. For the record, I support the resysopping, but would like to see confirmation that Jbeach56 is operated by the same person. I found the sysopping log where you say it is a reincarnation. That's good enough for me, but possibly others might want to know how you reached that conclusion. Carcharoth 11:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Braunwart and David Shear[edit]

I've created expanded entries for Robert Braunwart and David Shear on Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. Robert had plenty of confirmation of his passing and I think that since you and I have both confirmed enough info on David, there should be no doubt about his passing either.--Alabamaboy 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

TFA cookie[edit]

Choco chip cookie.jpg

Please accept this cookie for instituting the changes we've discussed regarding WP:TFA/R. I think this is a great page now—scaleable for you, and with a fair list of criteria for nominators and people commenting. Marskell 14:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal FAC[edit]

Hi Raul, I wanted to get your opinion on the Mumia Abu-Jamal FAC. This is the second time that a banned user has nominated the article, and he has created several sock puppets (all of which are now blocked) to taunt those of us who assumed that it was a valid FAC and offered comments. User:DrKiernan brought up on the FAC page the Wikipedia banning policy of enforcement by reverting edits. It might be best to close the FAC now to get rid of part of his motivation for creating all those sock puppets. Karanacs 14:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back again, when it was just failed yesterday. Four FACs now since September 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the IP/user tree:

Raznatovic
82.230.26.43
NewbieBoss
80.67.25.159
PhiladelphiaBreeze
123.2.124.42
NewLabourNewLies
Opinionleader

I've blocked them all. If he shows back up, I'll continue to terminate. Raul654 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Godiego (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Goedigo is a suspected sock of User:TheNewHampshireVolunteer who was in turn an inconclusive sock of User:DavidYork71. Checkuser case. The condoleezza nomination added to the FAC page was originally the old nomination. I moved it to the archives but i doubt Godiego will deal with the issues brought up. It all seems a bit strange. Woodym555 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, it took me 20 minutes to clean up Condi; that's what's so irritating about driveby sock noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A talk page full of complaints from numerous FAC participants, unactionable opposes, unintelligible supports, and now this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After encountering this one, I'm going to call it a day after getting only halfway through. FAC is too convoluted by these sorts of entries and it's hard to tell where some FACs stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about nominating an article for "Today's Featured Article"[edit]

I'd like to nominate the Webley Revolver article as "Today's Featured Article" for November 8th, as it will be the 120th anniversary of the Webley's introduction into service. There are currently no featured articles scheduled for November 8th, but it would seem I have to wait until one of the articles currently under consideration for a different day is voted on before I can make a request on the Featured Article Request page. Some of the nominations have been there for almost 2 weeks now, so I'm wondering: How long do they typically remain there before being voted on, and is there a way I can request the Webley Revolver article appear on November 8th in spite of the "Five requests only on the page" limit? I posted this same question on the talk page and no-one has replied, which is why I've posted it here as well. --Commander Zulu 02:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles are removed from the TFA requests page (at the latest) when the date comes and passes. Raul654 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for answering that; I did wonder how it all worked. --Commander Zulu 10:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

intelligent design[edit]

If one looks at the article, one will see that "the 1987 case" is not identified until later in the article. Please either identify "the" 1987 US Supreme Court case, or return it to "a" (indefinite article as opposed to definite article, (e.g. "the 1987 case US Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguilard" vs. "the US Supreme Court case" without naming it until later, as it previously was in the ID article). Thanks, Raul/Mark. ... Kenosis 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's identified in that sentence: "Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling involving separation of church and state.
I suppose it might make more sense to convert the Edwards link into a less surprising one. (We're supposed to avoid surprise links) What do you think about: "Intelligent design" originated in response to the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguilard involving separation of church and state. Raul654 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Mark, please sleep on it and look at the flow of the info in the article. Edwards v. Agulard isn't specified until the beginning of the Overview section, because it's a bit too much specificity for the presumed typical reader of the lead. This it's properly referred to as "a" rather than "the" in the article lead, at least AFAICT. ... Kenosis 05:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right that it's late and I'm sleepy :)
I'm heading off for bed. I'll look at it with a fresh eye tomorrow Raul654 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for promoting Trapped in the Closet (South Park) to FA! A quick question, am I allowed to add {{featured article}} to the article page? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Yes, you are allowed to do so. Raul654 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and done. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC).
November 16, 2007 ?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/December to Dismember (2006)/archive1[edit]

For some reason, this was closed FOUR DAYS after it first opened. I was in discussion with several users over the problems, only to have it closed without proper consensus. I should of been open for much longer than four days in my opinion. Can you explain why it has been closed so SOON?

QUOTE from FAC page:
If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination.

I do not consider four days a sufficent amount of time. I therefore hope that you can remove the things from the top and bottom of the D2D nomination page, and let the nomination continue for at least another week. Thanks, Davnel03 10:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know a reason. I don't like being ignored. Davnel03 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you... I'm at work and I don't have time to respond to this right now. See my previous comment about answering questions in this page in a timely manner. Raul654 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The usual time on the FAC for a nomination (before I archive or promote it) is 5 days, or 4 if the FAC is particularly bloated. In yesterday's case, yes, the FAC was bloated, because Gimmetrow (whose bot I depend on to do some of the promotions) had been away for a week. So, I elected to promote/archive some nominations that had been there 4 days.

In your case, the nomination had been open for four days, had a long list of problems with the article, and had no supports. I don't leave nominations on there just for the sake of leaving them there. If it doesn't have a fair shot of being promoted, I'm going to archive it - which is what I did.

Now, I'll tell you what: normally we suggest that people wait at least a few weeks after a failed FAC nom before nominating that article again. Go ahead and address the problems that have already been identified, and I'll be ok with you starting a new FAC nom sooner rather than later. Raul654 05:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) :OK. The main problem was whether some of the sources were reliable or not. Now that most of them have been replaced, I will probably renominate it later tonight. Onto a seperate thing, someone during another FAC I'm involved in has told me that the article needs to be thoroughly copy-edited, despite the fact that it's already been copy-edited twice. I've replied saying that if he just tells me what the problems are, I'll sort them out, but it seems like he's unwilling to back down. Should I really get it copy-edited during an FAC, as the comments above his comments (Tony1 incase your wondering) would be ineffective and useless. Thanks, Davnel03 09:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed the sources issue, and have renominated it. I've noted that you have allowed me to nominate it again so soon after it was failed. Thanks! Davnel03 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nemesis-SG1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nemesis-SG1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fix needed to Al Gore FAC[edit]

Raul, can you fix this malformed nom (unless another admin sees it first)?

Al Gore was submitted to WP:FAC as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al Gore/archive2, when it should have been submitted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al Gore. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al Gore/archive2 needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al Gore and then archive2 needs to be deleted. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Nishkid64. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Marcus Trescothick FAC[edit]

Hi,

Would you be so kind to take a look at this (failed) FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick/archive1? It was closed without warning, and as far as we can see, the vast majority (if not nearly all) of comments were addressed and fixed. Was the failing simply down to a time factor (i.e. not getting the required 'supports' within 2 weeks), or are there other issues that need addressing? It is in the back of my mind just to nominate it again, but that seems a bit pointless.

One problem may have been that some of the reviewers didn't come back to see if their work was done, despite a polite reminder.

Thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu[edit]

Hey Mark, I hope you don't mind me commenting on the DBP article. It would be good if someone is able to provide the Vietnamese side of the story. (Not me!) Alot of the stuff on show in Vietnam is clearly propaganda, but much of it tells an interesting and different (not necessarily contradictory) story to the one in wikopedia. One specific suggestion - I won't make any changes myself, as it is not my intention to get into a edit war:-) Why not add a sentence to the article stating that the Vietnamese only had one surgeon (doctor?) at DBP. It sounds far more convincing than just saying they had no effective medical services. Also, why not add a comparison with the French medical services (they had a lot of problems too!). I still can't quite believe that the Viet Minh transported 50,000 men, along with heavy artillery and AA guns through the mountains, and across rivers, but they only thought to bring one doctor along. But there you go ;-) 222.123.143.133mja —Preceding comment was added at 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Not one doctor - they had one surgeon and six "assistant doctors". Raul654 15:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chinua Achebe[edit]

HI Raul. I'm sorry to trouble you but I don't know what to do in this situation. In a nutshell, I've opposed this article as it doesn't use the appropriate national variety of English. The nominator responded by contacting various editors via their talkpages - Awadewit, Kaldari, WillowW, and Qp10qp - asking them to comment/support/help him in the ENGVAR debate. This is a highly selective group, who were all vociferous in a similar recent debate. Awadewit and Kaldari have already posted against my oppose; and WillowW has !supported the article. I don't think it's appropriate to stack the debate like this. This is all a bit too POV and a bit too political. I really don't understand why this particular group is making such a fuss. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I need to apologize for being the offending party here. I didn't realize that my call for backup was counterindicated by the rules of WP, and I hope recent changes have shown that the dispute has been resolved (or at least postponed) in good faith. (Olive branches have been exchanged in both directions.) I will of course refrain from such actions in the future.
I stumbled upon this comment from Mr. Davies simply by chance; I actually dropped by to see if I could get a sense on when the Chinua Achebe FAC might be closed? There is one series of comments (from Carabinieri) which have all been addressed, but to which he hasn't responded. (He's been WikiAWOL for several days.) The FAC has been idle for three days now.
I hope I'm not being a pest; just curious. If I am being bothersome, feel free to tell me so. =) – Scartol · Talk 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here but I withdraw my opposition on the basis that the dispute was resolved and that the article would revert to its original Commonwealth English. You appear now to be saying that the dispute was postponed, which suggests that the debate restarts after FAC. This is nobody's interests over what is essentially a trivial matter. Please clarify. If I have misunderstood what you say I apologise in advance. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To avoid cluttering Raul's talk page, I'll respond at User talk:Roger Davies. – Scartol · Talk 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Having read Scartol's comments - which are essentially deferring this - it seems we have not resolved this after all. My objection therefore remains unaddressed: that for a flagship article about Nigeria's greatest living writer, it is important that the article use the appropriate spelling, ie Commonwealth English. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-sysop request[edit]

Was wondering if you could resysop me, I requested desysopping back in June voluntarily in order to take a break but now I would like the tools back since break time's over. Thanks. Pilotguy 02:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene Amdahl[edit]

Do you know how to get in touch with him? --David Shankbone 04:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have any contact information for him whatsoever :(
I brought it up in IRC, and Gwern found this pic of him on flickr, and suggested I contact the copyright holder. I have - I'm still waiting for a reply. But assuming that doesn't work, what's the next step? Raul654 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You have to be able to find a way to track him down. For instance, with Victoria Wyndham I found her son's agent, e-mailed him, asked him to forward it to the son (Christian Camargo, who is supposed to be in Heroes this season), and he contacted Victoria. --David Shankbone 05:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran[edit]

Hi Raul! We've not "met" before, but of course I have seen you around, and I realize you're involved in this issue. I will say I'm not at all involved, other than just having seen Mel around Wikipedia in the past, but I did notice that a non-admin blanked Mel's userpage and talk page, tagging them with the sock tags. Melsaran has requested the talk pages be restored, until the issue is resolved one way or another, so I thought it would be best if you or someone else involved replied. Thank you for taking the time to look into this! ArielGold 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a request for an article to go on the front page. Honest.[edit]

I've read the debate on nomming articles for the front page and the current instructions - and am not going to make a specific request. I just wanted to put a thought in your head: the Formula One motor racing Wikiproject has three as yet unused FAs that might provide some (more) variety on the front page: Tom Pryce (a driver killed in unpleasant circumstances in the late 1970s), Brabham (a racing team) and Brabham BT19 (a unique racing car). I'm guilty of being the lead contributor on the last two. Ignore as you wish! Cheers. 4u1e 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See also sections[edit]

Raul654 since you are someone who deals with Featured Articles and can understand what goes into making a good article, I would like you know what is your opinion on "See Also" sections that creep into Wikipedia articles? Usually they become random lists of loosely related topics piled on and on by random drive-by editors, but do you feel that they ever provide any value to an article? Or should they be completely avoided? I don't plan on making any wide-scale edits on this but I'd like to know your thoughts. Burntsauce 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right that "See also" sections tend to become jumbles of random links, often redundant with links also in the articles. More importantly, I feel that if another article it worth linking to, it should be described and linked properly from within the body of that article, and that the whole concept of "see also" is redundant with this purpose. For these reasons, I am against see-also sections. Raul654 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They're also obviated by categories (in my opinion). So, where does one go from here...? Burntsauce 18:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Where we've always gone; we ask that See also be reduced at FAC. If links are already included in the article, they don't belong in See also. If they aren't already in the article, we ask if the article is comprehensive. Just as each External link should have a justifiable reason for being there, so should each entry in See also. I always object to bloated ELs and See alsos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Sandy but what I meant was how do we codify this into a guideline, or is there already one? Burntsauce 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: WP:GTL#See also. The deal is, See also has a function as an article is in development; it's a place to park items that remain to be worked into the article, but these should be resolved by the time an article comes to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I also find that "what links here" is a useful way to gather tidbits of information (after independently verifying and sourcing them, of course) and adding them to an article. But as Sandy says, "see also" often functions like a notepad for noting stuff to be worked into an article later. Carcharoth 00:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Make-Up FAC[edit]

Thanks for the heads up on the Make-Up FAC. I've been ridiculously busy that last few weeks, so I've been unable to devote much attention to Wikipedia. That said, I'll try and find some time within the next couple days to address the last of the concerns, and hopefully wrap that FAC up soon. Thanks for the message. Drewcifer 18:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Mississippi[edit]

You have greatly abused your admin powers in fully protecting this template. I don't have to, as you said, "have a good reason". Nor does anyone own a template, including admins. Wikipedia:Talk page templates states that while it is a guideline, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Wikipedia:Talk page templates doesn't say I have to have a good reason. It, in simple terms, says this is a guideline but you don't have to follow it but use common sense and if a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. But no, it's your way or no way. The background color of the template is uniform with the WikiProject Mississippi scheme and it should stay as I had it. Aside from the color issue, I now do not have any access to the template whatsoever to make any kind of other administrative changes and I think it's petty and a waste of time to have to hunt down an admin to make the changes for me if I need them made immediately. Just thought I'd let you know what I think about it. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:{{WikiProject Mississippi member}} and Template:Portal:Mississippi/Portal[edit]

{{WikiProject Mississippi member}} is NOT a TALK PAGE template. It's a userspace template. WP:AGF before you go accusing me of "making a point". And where is policy saying a portal's box has to have a standard color? Further, stop WP:STALK me. It's creepy. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

FLCs[edit]

Hi, I've been closing FLCs as of late, and I am continually running into issues where I fail a nom and the nominator immediately asks that it be reopened, even though there was no support and no active discussions. I was wondering what you do when such a request is made regarding FACs. -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ted Frank[edit]

This article has been deleted--and restored--by CoolHandLuke. CHL, who has an arguable COI in editing it himself, removed information that the subject criticized Wikipedia; I restored the criticism of Wikipedia information (but left other edits by CHL), stating that in ArbCom the subject raised the point he is writing another article criticizing Wikipedia. I received a message on my Talk page from newyorkbrad that this was inappropriate...? How so? To the best of my knowledge, ArbCom exists as publicly as any other page does, and having a person involved in arguing on behalf of the person (indeed, his advocate) removing information from the subject's page, and my citing as a source the person's own words to restore it...how is this problematic? If I have a possible COI in restoring deleted material, CHL has a COI in deleting it to begin with. The information in that article, by the way, was heavily worked on by a disinterested community; and is now being edited by a person (CoolHandLuke) who has an arguable interest in changing it. --David Shankbone 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wilson v. State of Georgia[edit]

Look up every other source and they clearly state that she is African-American. The only way we can include your change is to note that ABC News reported that she was white but that A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H... stated that she was African-American. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 03:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been following the case closely enough to know what the other sources have said about her race. Links? Raul654 03:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on it -- I will get back to you shortly. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 03:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
First off, let me apologize for (too) impulsively jumping here and questioning your change. I (believe it or not) have carefully followed this case and have participated both as an editor and as a talk page participant. For some reason, it was decided on the talk page that she was African-American supposedly as referenced in the exhaustive ESPN article. In fact, it did not state that. I've always had it in my mind that she was black and, I guess, just let that "fact" be a part of my mental cataloguing while researching the sources. I've gone back and read them all and no mention of race.
I hope my mea culpa helps -- I'm typically neither so impulsive nor so absolutely wrong. Hopefully, that isn't self-delusional. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe I have some redemption here. There are two current articles that state the victim was black:

The prosecutor, Douglas County Dist. Atty. David McDade, has noted in the past that the two alleged victims were black.[40]

and

Douglas County prosecutors, meanwhile, have vehemently denied race played a role, noting all the defendants and victims in the case are black.[41]

I am now re-confident that I have seen this in other articles that are not current sources to the article. User Slyintn included the two above sources to the article and noting her race is in dispute. I guess we will need to leave it as is unless ABC retracts the statement. Thanks. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That works for me Raul654 16:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Buttocks[edit]

Are you almost done with the buttocks page? It's been over 30 minutes missing from Wikipedia, has it not? --SpiralingMusic 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I tried deleting it (to get rid of one particular revision), canceled because it looked like it had failed from too many revisions, and I checked to see if it had gone through. I didn't look like it had. I've fixed it now. Raul654 00:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Raul654/bragsheet[edit]

Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For creating more than 430 articles(the last I counted).--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 17:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I paste the wikitext into a spreadsheet to count them. My current count is at 476 articles. My goal is to get to 500 :) Raul654 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Green (Dartmouth College)[edit]

Someone is claiming that the subject isn't notable and that sources aren't reliable. Since you are the one in charge of promoting candidates, I'd like to see what your view on the matter is. If you have a few minutes to spare, please drop by and read the discussion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob[edit]

There's a minor issue with the summary for this article set to appear on the mainpage.

The plan was executed when the match referee, Earl Hebner, under orders from McMahon, called for the bell to ring and ended the match as Michaels held Hart in the sharpshooter submission hold (Bret's signature finishing move), even though Hart had not submitted.

I raised the point at WPT:PW that the use of a first name ("Bret"'s signature finishing move) doesn't mesh well with the tone of the rest of the summary, and indeed the article itself. There seems to be consensus to swap that out for "Hart's signature finishing move." So if you could make that change, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Tromboneguy0186 07:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup[edit]

Since you've expressed an interest in coming, I just want to make sure you're fully aware of the recent change of schedule as detailed at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#What, Where, When, and How?. Thanks.--Pharos 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

General FAC question[edit]

How many Supports does an article need to pass FAC? Is there an exact amount? Thanks, you're doing a great job with the FAC's despite the pressure your under! :) Davnel03 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable promoting with anything less than three supports (nominator not included). In some very rare cases, I'll promote with two (in the case of an article that's languishing on the FAC with no objections just below the promotion limit) Raul654 21:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Davnel03 22:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This FAC I'm involved with has had 6 supports and 0 opposes. Shouldn't the FAC be passed now? Thanks, Davnel03 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding media[edit]

It says on the media page to come to you with questions regarding media. Are you only there for "video" or can you help with general "audio" issues? My problem is finding a program that will allow me to trim all but 10 seconds from Harry Manfredini's "Moments of Terror audio sample. I'm trying to create an audio sample of his iconic Friday the 13th theme song, but I don't know how to trim it and make it accessable for Wikipedians. Can you help me with this, or do you know someone that could? Anything is appreciated, as always.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with most media on Windows or Linux. You want audacity. It's easy to use, and when you're finished, export it as an ogg. Raul654 03:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Awesome, that totally worked. I got to edit the bit down to less than 10 seconds of audio, which was all I needed from it. It plays on the page as well. Thanks again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you delete the older uploads for the media file? I was trying to trim the file to be as succinct as possible--though, for some reason the file I kept uploading is not the file that keeps playing--and there are a bunch of older versions with the file. Image:F13theme.ogg.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of those excess files.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IP block due to suspected COI[edit]

Raul, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello badge[edit]

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So twisted[edit]

Fine. I'm going. ScienceApologist 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

John Hancock[edit]

If you review the vandalism history of article John Hancock, in particular what happened immediatetly after you removed its semi-protection today, I think you might see why it was semi-protected in the first place. --Ziusudra 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the semiprotection template; I didn't actually remove the protection. Raul654 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so. Well, then, I suppose it is just as well to avoid alerting the barbarians. --Ziusudra 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 5[edit]

You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
November 11, 2007

Time: 5:00 pm
Location: Buca Di Beppo, 258 South 15th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102.

RSVP
(view/edit this template)


You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot 22:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there's a very good chance I'll go. Raul654 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Imbrella?[edit]

Hi,

Who was imbrella sockpuppeting with, if you don't mind me asking? WLU 00:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Imbrella Raul654 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Lovely, he gets a whole category dedicated to him. Thanks! WLU 06:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

TFA October 31, 2007[edit]

The "recently featured" section of the current TFA is missing plug-in hybrid (TFA Oct 30) on its list. mrholybrain's talk 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. Raul654 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Wikiquette alert[edit]

Categorizing PR[edit]

Hi Raul. After much discussion of possible reforms at the Wikipedia:Content review/workshop I have started a thread regarding categorizing Peer review, here. Thought you might want to comment. Thanks, Marskell 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3[edit]

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements[edit]

Will you be running for the arbitration committee elections again? I can't think of a more qualified and experianced canadate.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, not that you'll need it, of course.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know :) Raul654 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that sort of like asking: Have you well and truly scrambled your brains? It's bad enough that Raul was crazy enough to put up with a full three year term to begin with.  ;-) Dragons flight 04:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I had no idea that it was inappropriete to ask such as question. And I think that Raul is fully qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In case you missed it, the smiley face indicates sarcasm. Dragons flight 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
True, and Raul's re-running for Arbcom indicates either a saintly amount of patience or a total disregard for personal sanity Confused.svg Face-wink.svg -- Avi 04:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you can say my sense of humor is way off tonight, Dragons Flight. I never thought that ;-) was a smilely face. I thought it was just a typing mistake. Now, Avi's, I could probally tell. But anyway, as long as no harm was done on my part, then I'm happy.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 04:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, the beauty of graphic emoticons, a poor, yet workable, substitute for the infinite variations and variegations of non-verbal communication that can be perceived in face-to-face communications. :) -- Avi 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of User:Imbrella on Talk:Creationism[edit]

Hi Raul, I noticed that you recently blocked a number of sockpuppets who have been trolling the evolution-related talk pages recently. Today a "new" (SPA) user, User:Partgreen has surfaced making similar nonconstructive comments and baring a strong resemblance to the previous socks (e.g., language use, writing style using strange phrasing like "that sounds like OR", unwillingness or inability to indent talk page comments, etc.). Would you mind taking a look and blocking him if necessary before he wastes any more time and sucks a bunch of other editors into his senseless, off-topic debates? Thanks. — DIEGO talk 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I did more digging and it seems Imbrella is actually user:Raspor Raul654 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to extend the 1-week block of User:Partgreen, but I just indef-blocked him on your recommendation. Tim Vickers 16:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC Nom withdrawal request[edit]

Hi. I nominated Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Air_transport_in_the_United_Kingdom for FA. The comments coming back make it clear to me that whilst the article covers the subject I intended it to, the title does not. It's not likely to succeed and rather than labour on under this misnomer I'd like to withdraw the nomination so that I can rename the article and edit it a little to make it clear what the article is actually about. Is that possible? Thanks. --FactotEm 14:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

FactotEm, Raul seems pretty busy lately; I will archive the FAC nom as "withdrawn" for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. I'll get around to archiving the FAC in the next day or two. Raul654 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You're going to find lots of messy ones when you get there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks both. I appreciate your help. --FactotEm 19:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta has 22 Supports right out of the gate, in spite of serious issues, with canvassing of "100 or so editors". Some progress was made today, but considering the work needed and the length of the FAC already, I'm wondering if this is a good candidate for a restart when you run through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow's FA[edit]

I hope this is the right place to ask. The blurb for the main page has "in Rummer Street" as the last three words to match the main text of the article. This was removed in the main text. I later removed it from the lede, and a little birdy confirmed it was probably wrong and is unnecessary even if it is right. Can it be removed from the main page blurb too? The edit tab seems to be missing for me on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 3, 2007, so I suppose it is protected. Andplus 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Main page blurbs are protected as a matter of course. I have fixed the proble, though. Raul654 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2007[edit]

This is going to be a very candid question, because I don't know much about the Main page FA process. An editor asked on WP:ERROR why the "CIA-backed" part of the lead does not appear in the front page. Since you're the one who prepared the lead, I was wondering if you could reply there (I am also interested). Thanks :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach[edit]

Hello, I accidentally noticed your edit to the article in which you wikified the lute suites. You did it some time ago. Thing is, the links you provided are for some reason mentioning Mozart, ie. "Suite in E minor (Mozart)", etc. My first instinct was to revert this as vandalism, but then I noticed who made the edit, and I've seen your work before, so I decided to ask whether there is some new theory about those works or something..

Also, why did you wikify those particular sections? Are articles in the works for those pieces? Jashiin 16:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an error on my part. We have some recordings of the lute suite, so I wanted to make sure that got red-linked and eventually someone adds an article on it. Raul654 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Overdue header[edit]

Have you ever thought of adding a box like they use at WP:FLC to call peoples attention to candidates that need more opinions. I think either 21 or 30 days might be reasonable for WP:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page[edit]

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan talk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/December to Dismember (2006)[edit]

I nominated this for FAC a few weeks ago, see here. The nomination for some reason has been removed from the main FAC page, but the article has yet to be promoted or not promoted. Can you please either promote the article, or readd it to the FAC page? In my view, it should be passed, as it has a clear consensus. Thanks in advance, Davnel03 11:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been promoted, see the Featured article log. Gimmebot just hasn't gone round yet. Woodym555 11:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Someone added a star to the article, but it was removed. I've readded it. Thanks for the link - I never knew that. Davnel03 11:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, congratulations on your star, GimmeBot will do the rest some time soon. Woodym555 12:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It has not been promoted. That user just has a bad habit of saying "Pass & Support" instead of just "Support". Check his talk page where someone else tells him this is not the correct way of supprting it. He is not an admin and can not promote articles. TJ Spyke 17:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact it has been promoted. This is the definitive edit; if Raul adds it to the FA page, it's an FA. He doesn't add the stars. Mike Christie (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Leranedo did not "pass" the page, Raul did, as the links show. When GimmeBot gets to it, the official "archiving and updating" will occur. Woodym555 17:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the bot also add the star to each new FA page? --Melty girl 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you can add the star yourself if Raul promotes an article by moving it to the WP:FA page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear-up on that confusion. Thanks! Davnel03 18:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
To some, it is the reward after all that work: finally being able to add {{featured article}} to the page. Woodym555 18:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that's cool! Off I go... 18:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melty girl (talkcontribs)

Just pointing out (again) that this is spelled out at {{FAC}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but if it takes 12 - 24 hours for it to update, it can leave some people, especially if they haven't gone through the FA process that much, confused. We really should have it done and changed instantly, but that's inpossible. I would update the ArticleHistory for D2D myself, but that would probably make the bot screw up. Davnel03 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Best to leave it for the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thich Quang Duc FA[edit]

Hi Raul. Can I get a quick comment on what extra things you are looking for in this article? It doesn't have any objections and has quite a few supports. The only outstanding comment was an alternative structure for the lead which the reviewer felt was optional. Best regards. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about Calliopejen1's copyright objections. Those need to be dealth with. Raul654 00:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I forgot to make a comment about that on the actual FAC page but I did post a comment to his general talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear, he moved his account and I posted on the old one so he didn't see it. Anyway, if people encourage others to reproduce/reprint their work and "spread the word" freely, as this material is, would it not be a free image? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I FUed them but hopefully I'll get a confirmation that the pictures are free. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

List of users by pages created[edit]

User:Bryan/List of users by pages created. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 09:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neat! I'll let the signpost know. Raul654 15:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

An award[edit]

Builder-award.png The Builder Award
For your meticulous and indefatigable work on coordinating the Featured Article process, I present you this Builder Award. May you continue to lead the way for Wikipedia excellence for years to come. – Scartol · Talk 15:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles[edit]

Wow thats amazing I didn't know I was actually the Number 1!!. Yes I am all about trying to build this into what it is clearly capable and enjoy seeing it develop beyond belief. Increasing the scope of wikipedia is what I am all about on here rather than wiki councils which probably reflects in this statistic over the last 20 months or so. I hope everybody is proud of my work. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

We actually met at the meetup, I just had to leave the museum early so we didn't get a chance to really chat. ScienceApologist 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection level of GameFAQs[edit]

Just to tell you that I removed the expiration from the protection you put to prevent the move protection to fade automatically. I fear that nobody will think of putting it back when the protection expires. Of course that does not mean that the protections shouldn't be removed in a few hours. -- lucasbfr talk 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Restarted FAC's[edit]

I don't have a problem with the restarted nominations, but is there policy about how these re-nominations work? – Ilse@ 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, they are treated as the same as the old nomination, except with all supports and opposes wiped out. Anyone can re-copy their support or oppose from the old one to the new one, provided it is still applicable. (So it's perfectly fine for someone to copy his oppose over, provided it hasn't yet been addressed) Raul654 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. – Ilse@ 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Information Request[edit]

User:A.Z. has been blocked indefinitely and his talk page locked. I would like to know:

  • Did the Arbitration Committee request or endorse these actions ?
  • If so, until what date or condition will these actions continue ? (I know the term is listed as "indefinite", what I don't know is if the intent is for this to be a permanent block or not.)

Thank you,

StuRat 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Song samples[edit]

Hi Raul. I have noticed you do quite a bit with adding sound samples. I'd like to find a sample to add to the classic "Linus and Lucy". Wondered if you had an idea of where to look and also wondered if asking permission for sound samples was the same as asking for permission for images? Same license etc.? ♫ Cricket02 20:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't do samples - I do full length songs, for songs whose copyright has expired. What you're asking for is - I think - the peanuts theme song. It's not difficult to locate. But that music is still under copyright, so we can't really put it on Wikipedia. Raul654 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was thinking I could ask someone who had recorded a version for permission to use - but since it is still under copyright, that would still not be allowed. Okay, got it. Thanks Raul. ♫ Cricket02 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
With music copyright, both the composer and the performer get a copyright on the work. (And changing one note in the score creates a new copyright work, so in theory all recordings should be done using old out-of-copyright scores; in practice, it's essentially impossible to tell the score from the recording). Raul654 21:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"[edit]

Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

why reverting?[edit]

hi. you reverted my edit on Paul Tibbets without any reason. the articles have discuss page for talking the people. if you have good reason for revertivg say it on this, or not plz don` revrt the other`s edition. about that, the article in first paraghraph must xplain the what is exist on resume. regards,--Gordafarid 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • note: u didn`t answer to me, however when u havn`t any reason for reverting plz don`t revert anther people contribution! thanks.--Gordafarid 17:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Congratulations! Your image Image:LOC - Jefferson building.jpg was the random picture of the day for November 6, 2007. It looked like this:

Washington, D.C.Random picture of the day Rpotdlogo.png

LOC - Jefferson building.jpg

The Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress
Image credit: Raul654 (talk · contribs)

. Again, Congratulations! - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please consider for main article[edit]

Hi Raul. I have been a major contributor to 9 FA's starting with the first one in November 2006, none of which have made it to the main article. Please consider one of them for main article appearence this month. Since I dont have a special date for any for this month, please consider Hoysala architecture because it is a unique topic and is a proposed UNESCO world heritage site.thanksDineshkannambadi 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pule (Holiday)[edit]

Could you close the FA nomination for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pule (Holiday)? The article was speedily deleted as a repost after the deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pule (2nd nomination). Feats-O-Strength (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to want to bring this article back any way he can, and his FA nomination is one way to do so.

I don't know all the particulars of delisting and archiving a failed FA nomination (assuming that it should indeed be marked failed), so if you could do the honors, that would be great. Thanks. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, because the article has no talk page, it will stall GimmeBot. I moved to archive and cleared the FAC; I'd like to remove it from the archive file and manually tag it closed, if that's OK with you, so it wont' stall GimmeBot when he tries to update articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Raul654 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I left it in the archive file for the record (a number of opposes), but botified it manually so it wouldn't stall GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ogg file difficulty[edit]

Greetings, Raul654. Can I request your assistance, please? I've tried three times now to upload the file Image:Chry_1.5OSGR_Starter.ogg, and although it plays fine for me locally in Audacity under OSX, when playing it from the wikipedia page after upload it winds up with gaps. I've uploaded the file to one of my homespace test pages here. Am I doing something wrong, or have I angered the Wikigods somehow? Thanks --Scheinwerfermann 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The ogg file on Wikipedia plays perfectly fine for me - I don't here any gaps or distortions. It's possible the ogg file is perfectly fine, and you hear gaps because it's a browser/java problem. Trying playing it on a different computer and see if the distortion remains. Raul654 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting the same gap, at exactly the same point in the file—just prior to 0:01—on three different computers (two Macs, one PC). --Scheinwerfermann 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment request[edit]

Hi Raul,

Can you comment on a claim that there was private checkuser confirmation of some kind by yourself (and Becca), here?

Edits timestamped 14:00 and 14:08, 8 November 2007, refer.

Thanks!

FT2 (Talk | email) 14:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

TFA 9 Nov 2007[edit]

The blurb doesn't indicate who's pictured in the accompanying photo: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 9, 2007. -- Super Aardvark 21:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The alt-text does. Hover your mouse about the picture and you get his name. Raul654 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Arbcom still valid?[edit]

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_edit_warring_at_Winter_Soldier_Investigation is a case which you were involved in.

Is the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Winter_Soldier/Proposed_decision#Proposed_enforcement still valid? The one year revert ban has expired, but the Ban violations and Parole violations have not expired. Is this correct?

Thanks in advance. I will watch your page for the response. Travb (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting Webley Revolver on the front page![edit]

Just a quick note to say thank you very much for arranging to have Webley Revolver featured on November 8th- I really appreciate your time and assistance with making it possible! --Commander Zulu 11:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Raul654 (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And hey, thanks for adding Cillian Murphy too. Much appreciated!! --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hee! Thanks for the little note & pic. You're fab. --Melty girl (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thin Arthur[edit]

Hi Raul654. You posted an April 21, 2007 Checkuser tree, but left it unfinished. In that tree, the only name you posted "(Legit user?)" next to was Thin Arthur. See this post. Thin Arthur now is included in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage (which I am working on) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia. I'm not sure what you meant by "(Legit user?)". Also, I am not sure how to read that checkuser tree. If you have more information on Thin Arthur or if that checkuser tree reveals information that would help out at SSP, please post it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dbromage. F.Y.I., there is an open checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dbromage. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"(Legit user?)" means that I was not sure when I was doing the checkuser if that user was a legit user or not.
The structure of the tree is (conceptually) easy to understand: all IPs under a username are IPs that user has been known to have used; usernames under an IP are usernames that trace to that IP. Repeats are omitted as they are found. Raul654 01:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Invisible Barnstar.png An Invisible Barnstar

To Raul654, for Wikipedia:Today's featured article, the "Rings of Jupiter". Jupiter has been here but I have never been there—thank you and if it is all right to say so, Jodi Foster and Co. and a cast of thousands for Contact. Wow. Best wishes. Susanlesch 19:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Balzac[edit]

I notice Balzac is slated for Today's Featured Article on Nov. 17 – cheers for that. I notice also that you've removed the semi-protected status for that page. Alas, I worry that when he is put up on the front page, clever 12-year-olds around the world will go nuts with the vandalism. Maybe we should re-protect it on the 16th or so? – Scartol · Talk 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the semi-protection expired before I got there (07:46, 26 October 2007 Riana (Talk | contribs | block) protected Honoré de Balzac ‎ (vandalism of an unsavoury nature [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] (expires 07:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC))) (Change)) I just removed the semi-protection template (which was on an unprotected page). Raul654 02:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Is it possible to apply for semi-protection before it appears on the front page, on the presumption that it will be vandalized unless it is protected? – Scartol · Talk 15:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


An Inconvenient Truth[edit]

Why have you reverted my edits? Please discuss this on the AIT talk page.

Because you are sytematically introducing POV into that article by adding claims made by the TGGWS pseudo-documentary propaganda film, removing subsequent paragraphs describing the film as such, removing criticismo of the NSTA's actions. Raul654 03:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would participate in the discussion page rather than here. All of my actions are adequately discussed in the discussion page, none of yours are.
As for adding the TGGWS section, I did not. It has been a long standing section which was introduced by someone other than myself. I simply reverted a deletion by another editor who provided no satisfactory reason for the deletion. It is POV pushing that I am seeking to avoid here, not introduce it.
The information removed was redundant and available elsewhere (which I attempted to clarify on the page when you conducted a second revert).
The criticism of NSTA's action were made by a group with no direct knowledge of the events and it was redundant to boot making it WP:UNDUE. --GoRight 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


WikiProject Iowa[edit]

Here you go.. since you're all about policing template colors and such... {{WikiProject Iowa}}

{{Template:WikiProject Iowa}}

Enjoy. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Raul654 03:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested sound files[edit]

Is there a category and template analogous to {{reqphoto}} for articles needing a sound file? I am planning on doing some recordings of medieval and baroque music, and it would be nice to identify articles looking for specific pieces. If there is no category or template, I'd happily create one. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found it! Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Today's featured article/requests[edit]

Are we allowed to make non-date requests on this page? Buc 13:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If by a "non-date specific request", you mean a request that doesn't specify a date -- no, you have to pick some date. However, with that said, the date you pick doesn't have to have a relationship with the article being requested. Raul654 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nag[edit]

Sorry if I'm disturbing you....FACs.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

Music of the United States has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Wikipedia:Facebook[edit]

It was put up for MFD. I have speedy closed this as keep. Honestly! However, due to privacy concerns and because of confusion with Facebook, I have moved it to a more appropriate title. I've also permanently semi-protected the page to stop anons from abusing it. I'll also keep a permanent watch on the page - those who add images of others without their permissions will get reverted. Could you also add it to your watchlist? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:Facebook was moved to Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians. Right now its on MfD again: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). As page creator you might wish to comment. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Say goodbye to this extremely useful page Raul. Looks like the MFD deleters are at it again. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seattle[edit]

Hi there, We of WikiProject Seattle have been working diligently to correct all the issues brought up during its Featured Article review, and do believe we've brought it back up to snuff. The original nominator hasn't been seen in the discussion for a while and we were wondering when and how the review can be closed. Thanks! --Lukobe 08:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

main page queue[edit]

Hi Raul, noticed it's a bit short and wondered if you'd consider including Chess, or do you have a policy of not featuring an article for a second time? That'd be logical given so many have never appeared, but... :-) Also, fyi, 20/12/07 would have been the 102nd birthday of Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) if he hadn't already gone to the great cricket pitch in the sky... --Dweller 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Global warming[edit]

Hi Raul, I'm a little concerned about your recent edits on Global warming. There seems to be a consensus that the lead sentences are to be subjected to a 1RR. From a report at WP:AN/3RR, I see you've reverted twice already[42][43]. Two reverts would not normally be a problem, but you've already been blocked for edit warring on this article. Please think about this and discuss your future edits to the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The second of those reverts was to vandalism (changing it to increasing - which is flatly objectively false, and using a misleading edit summary to boot). Vandalism reverts are not normally counted against 3rr and whatnot. Raul654 (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you can reasonably state that the second revert was vandalism. You may believe that it is completely false, but the other user doesn't think so - It's a bog standard edit war. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It's vandalism for the same reason that if I go to the Earth article and edit it to say that the earth is flat, that's vandalism too. Both statements are flatly, objectively not true. Raul654 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The truthfulness of a statement is not considered in vandalism. I may very well say Metallica is considered a good band by [most] Americans, which is not true, but it wouldn't be vandalism. It's a content dispute, and as such fall under tendentious editing and edit warring. Additionally, you have no absolutely no ground to say whether dissenting scientists are increasing or decreasing in number, especially since I suspect nobody knows. This is obviously a content dispute, and your edit warring helps none. (Note, boldface text was edited after original post, to convey original meaning.) ~ UBeR (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks your your pontifications on what is and is not vandalism, however, policy disagrees with you (Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.) Deliberately adding false information into an article is vandalism.
Moreover, your analogy is transparently false, as is the logic behind it. Statements like "this band sucks" or "this band is awesome" are obviously subjective. The number of critics of global warming is not subjective. The number of critics has been steadily decreasing for 20+ years (down to a quantifiable few; indisputably fewer than 5 or 10 years ago) and continues to decrease as the evidence piles up. Obedium's edits are, then, flatly false. And I find it very convenient that you choose to ignore his obviously misleading edit summary ("Improved phrasing"). Raul654 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective, so it's not worth mentioning, especially in this case. Also, I believe you are incorrect on policy. WP:VANDALISM quite clearly states, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated" Your lack of good faith in editors is apparent across the board. Simply because you lack good faith in many of our contributing editors does not warrant edit warring. The policy continues, rather clearly, "NPOV violations ... Making bold edits ... Unintentional misinformation ... Unintentional nonsense ... Stubbornness" are not vandalism, and you cannot treat them as such. Own your mistakes and apologize for them, or you your should very well be blocked. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
"What one considers an improvement or not is wholly subjective" - I don't know what weird, truthiness filled-world you come from that with a straight face you say something like that. In the real world, the one that I live in, there is an objective reality. There are things that are true, and things are not. The world is not flat. The earth circles around the sun. It's 2006 AD. And the number of global warming skeptics is decreasing. And in this real world, we create encyclopedias like Wikipedia to document these facts. Someone who edits the earth article to say the world is flat is vandalizing the article. It's not subjective, it's not a judgment call - it's flat out wrong. And if you are unable to grasp this not-too-difficult concept, then you have no business trying to lecture anyone about our policies. Raul654 (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The 1RR provision exists only through the consensus of involved editors. If we allow editors with a history of POV-pushing and sockpuppetry to game the 1RR provision in order to insert outright lies, then that consensus will (and should) dissolve. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Dr. Arritt, "1RR is a delicate thing and abuse must not be allowed." Just as 3RR should not ever be violated simply because you disagree with the content, 1RR should not be abused if there is a consensus to have it in place as you say. And I think our policy on edit warring explains why rather well. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if a change from "A few" to "An increasing number" is demonstrably false (and while I'm not sure that you can indeed demonstrate that, I agree it is against the orthodox view and can be perceived as an attempt to mislead) I do not believe an indefinite block is called for, barring a long history of similar and intentional disruption. Thatcher131 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My mistake, it was a week. Still, that seems rather heavy. Do you realize how much easier Arbitration enforcement would be if I could drop a week on anyone without warning for single edits? Unless there is a long history with this user making delibreately misleading edits to GW topics, I think a week is pretty long. Thatcher131 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Please unprotect Obedium's talk page. Tak page protection is generally reserved for users who abuse the unblock template, thereby wasting other admins' time. There is a broad consensus that users can remove warnings; it is still there in the history and your edit summary is easily visible as well. Thatcher131 02:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As Raymond says, this is most certainly not out of the blue for this editor, seeing as how he's been warned for doing this several times before: [44][45][46]. (which is why letting people scrub these warnings is not a good idea). Beacuse you asked, I've gone ahead and unprotected his talk page - I expect he'll get rid of the current block message too. Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact there is a long history of this user making deliberately misleading edits to GW topics (see also his User:Scibaby sockpuppet). So, it's not as if it were a week's block applied out of the blue to an otherwise-constructive editor. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
May I also mention that Obedium edits his talk page back and forth repeatedly. The net change is to add "Test embedded..." AGF on this one is out of the question for a paranoid fella like myself, I think Obedium is trying to make the warnings become archaeological relics in the history of his talk page by artificially pushing time forward. He cannot escape by doing so sice everything is recorded, but it is annoying when trying to figure out how many warnings Obedium has. Brusegadi (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Raul654)[edit]

Hello, Raul654. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raul654, where you may want to participate.~ UBeR (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

(Note - the above RFC had no merit, was rejected by almost every person who commented on it, and was shortly thereafter deleted because it was not properly certified.) Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them[edit]

Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Newcomers are_delicious,_so_go_ahead_and_bite_them during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mercury 22:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Raspor sock?[edit]

User:Patonq? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just caught another half-dozen of his socks. Raul654 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fauna_of_Australia (Can u feature this tomorrow?)[edit]

Hi Raul, How about, this article for tomorrow? It came on the main page 2 yrs before... Mugunth (ping me!!!, contribs) 03:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Anticipating the inevitable "Is this article featured" questions[edit]

I had every intention of writing an FAQ to be added to {{FAC}}, but haven't gotten to it yet. Anticipating the rush of people asking if articles are featured after today's promotion:

  1. If the article is listed here, it has been promoted by Raul654. Yes you can add the star, by adding {{featured article}} to the bottom of the article. Please wait for the bot to do the rest of the updating to articlehistory and the article talk page. If you do that yourself, it creates extra work and stalls the bot.
  2. If the article is listed here, it was not promoted. Please wait for the bot to close the FAC and update the articlehistory. If you do that yourself, it creates extra work and stalls the bot.
  3. If you're coming here to ask, why did a bot promote or fail my nomination, the bot didn't; Raul did (see the diffs above). The bot only updates the articlehistory.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to have worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I'm going to run this sample page by Gimmetrow and Tony1. Please edit as you see fit, and we can use the associated talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony1 and Gimmetrow looked at the sandbox version, so I moved it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving and linked it to the {{FAC}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Subpage Test2 updating[edit]

I was wondering whether User:Raul654/test2 was going to receive further updates. I like it as resource and I am volunteering to help.--Keerllston 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Featured article statistics? Raul654 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Restarted FACs[edit]

I don't think restarting the FAC for Golden Film was really helpful, since it was archived without waiting for any new comments. Maybe the relevant projects should have been notified. Previously I asked you about the renomination policy, do you think notifying projects should be part of it? – Ilse@ 21:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Immune collapse[edit]

I noticed your request for immune collapse.[47] I can only see the term in the context of AIDS-related literature. Is this what you're referring to? JFW | T@lk 22:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I added it after it came up in my computational immunology class (in reference to AIDS). I also assumed it could refer to other situations like septicaemia Raul654 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge it is immune hyperactivity that makes septiciaemia such a nasty problem. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be correct. If that's the case (that it has no meaning outside of an AIDS context), what do you suggest? Raul654 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Determining what is and is not a featured article[edit]

Hello,

I'm wondering what your standard is for determining whether an article should be promoted to featured status or not. I ask this because I'm trying to get Opera (Internet suite) up to featured article status, and so I filed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opera (Internet suite), but you recently declined to promote it. Did you find a problem with the article, or were there simply not enough "votes"? If there were not enough votes, then about how many votes does an article need to be promoted? —Remember the dot (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Our debate on your questions page[edit]

Raul, we disagree strongly, but your questions page was probably not the best place to air that contentious debate. So feel free to refactor/move/remove our back-and-forth debate from that page. I stand by everything I wrote, and I have no problem with it staying exactly the way it is, but I would also not object to you refactoring it. Regardless of our respective positions on that case, the questions page was probably not the best place to get into an extended debate. ATren (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Invisible Barnstar.png The Invisible Barnstar
For being with us for so many years, and for many years to come, raise a glass. Marlith T/C 05:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some questions about your job as the FA director[edit]

1. If you are on holiday, busy or sick, who closes FACs?

2. How do you check whether all the problems are fixed? For example, I oppose an FAC for a few reasons, including not enough references and spelling mistakes. The nominator says he fixed everything, but he did not fix the spelling mistakes. Do you read the article to check whether all the spelling mistakes are fixed?

3. What is an "actionable" oppose and what is not?

--Kaypoh (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) Nobody.
(2) At any given time, there are probably well over 1,000 comments and replies on the FAC. No single person could possibly keep track of them all. The onus is on the reviewer to keep up with replies to his comments. In borderline cases, I usually check the article myself, but only a cursory review - I don't read the whole thing.
(3) An actionable objection is one that can be fixed. Determining what is and is not action is up to the FA director. Raul654 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. :) If the nominator did not fix the spelling mistakes and you promote the article to FA, is there a way to ask you to unpromote the article? --Kaypoh (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Kaypoh - rather than unpromote an article, why not simply fix the spelling mistakes yourself? I generally do these days as it is often simpler than actually writing about them on the FAC page. Remember the aim is to make FAs, not to pass or fail others as such. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That is an example. If the problems are bigger than spelling mistakes, and the nominator says he fixed them but he did not, and the article is promoted wrongly? --Kaypoh (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a distinctly unpleasant line of questioning, bordering on assuming all kinds of bad faith. If there's a FA that shouldn't be one, see WP:FAR. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
And please note the instructions there regarding the minimum time between promotion and review; in that time, often issues can be addressed without review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not bad faith. I opposed one FAC (I forgot which one) because about 10 paragraphs had no references. The nominator added references to only 3 or 4 paragraphs and the other paragraphs still had no references. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions[edit]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
  4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
  5. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom tomfoolery[edit]

Just a quick note to wish you good luck in the forthcoming silly season. How does it feel not to be the most controversial candidate? Lol. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong arbitration request[edit]

Hi Raul. Videmus Omnia filed a request for arbitration regarding Ryulong here, and in his statement he requested you recuse yourself from the case due to your having promoted him to adminship. Just in case you hadn't noticed. Picaroon (t) 23:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Image in Blender Article[edit]

Hi there!

The image you added to the Blender article seems to be of a mixer, not a blender. Perhaps a different, more appropriate image could be used instead? --Lightforce (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct! I mixed up my terminology ;) Raul654 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons[edit]

I was wondering if you thought that it was too soon to put it on the main page, since Homer's Phobia was the TFA on July 27. If you think it's too soon, then please let me know and I'll withdraw the request so that someone else can have the slot. -- Scorpion0422 02:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Preuss School FAC[edit]

Hi. I'm not really sure if it is the norm to approach you on your decisions on promotion of FAC but I guess I will just be bold and go ahead and do so. You recently achieved the FAC for The Preuss School UCSD after it had been there for less than week. While it had two opposes, one of them had been addressed and the other had only been there for a few hours. As such, I do not really feel as though this meets "If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination will be removed from the list and archived. The director determines the timing of the process for each nomination." I realize it is up to your discretion, but was wondering if I could have some kind of rationale for your decision. At any rate, thanks for the time. SorryGuy 07:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what - go ahead, fix Tony's objection, and then go ahead and renominate it. We normally tell people to wait a bit, but you're right that I might have been rather hasty. Raul654 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Twin article.[edit]

I noticed on your user page that you have some background in the field of biomedical engineering. So i decided to forward a question I found on the twin articles talk page. The question is here Thanks for your help if you have time to give it. And thanks anyway if you don't. Good luck with the upcoming election. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal[edit]

Is back at FAC again; DrKiernan has done some work on it, so I left him a note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links[edit]

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I am sitting on the fence. I understand that a portfolio may not be as necessary for an incumbent, and I marked your entry in the table accordingly. However, as I am looking for conflict resolution skills, I am deeply troubled by "I consider it a badge of honor that many [trolls] detest me". These trolls put more pertinent links on your vote page than you and your supporters. Please, could you at least back up your own claims, such as "It was at my suggestion that the three-revert rule became enforceable"? — Sebastian 16:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Conflict resolution skills", in the sense of a real-world mediator or arbitrator, are not really necessary for a Wikipedia arbitrator. In that sense, "Arbitration committee" is a bit of a misnomer (or to be more fair, a historical vestige) from a time when it was envisioned that the arbcom would be similar to real life arbitration. The fact of the matter is, Wikipedia is not real life. Trying to get a complete stranger to straight up and start behaving right from across the internet is a basically hopeless. That's why almost every mentorship and mediation fails/has failed miserably. If the people don't want to change, they won't; and the people who end up at the arbcom aren't the kind who are willing to change.
More useful skills for an arbitrator are: (a) being able to see a conflict in the totality of the circumstances, and apply Wikipedia policy, and to a lesser extent (b) have a detailed knowledge of the goings-on of the encyclopedia.
As to the 3rr enformcement, it's rather difficult for me to cite a conversation that took place in the arbitrators IRC channel. But if you look at the actual vote, you can see that I signed off on it seconds after Jimbo suggested it, using (verbatim) the wording I suggested. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank your for your extensive answer. Fair enough re the 3RR.
I'm less happy with the conflict resolution answer. Of course I know it's different on Wikipedia - as MedCab coordinator I see even experienced real world mediators having problems on Wikipedia. People do behave differently when they feel they are anonymous. It's tough - but it's certainly not "basically hopeless" or "almost every [time] fail[ing] miserably". I constantly have success changing people who you would call "trolls" and who you'd bet "don't want" to change. Just last month I had a case with a user, who came hear with a (foreign) swearword as a name, was completely distrustful of Wikipedia, in a conflict with a tough guy, who was, like you, proud to have many enemies among users he disrespected. After the mediation - in which the swearword user did not get what they demanded - ey thanked me with a barn star and changed eir user name to a peaceful name. That's what I would like to see in an ArbCom member. I can't expect it in everyone, but am appalled that you're a priori not even allowing for it. — Sebastian 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page as of 20:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC). If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and let me know.)

Re: Sysop action.[edit]

Hey Raul. Could you explain why you chose to block User:Obedium indefinately, and is there evidence that he/she/what-ever group is behind the account is the same people that were behind another indef blocked editor? Just curious. Regards,  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Obedium's user page led me to Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Obedium, which in turn led me to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Scibaby. I ran the checkuser, and confirmed that he's the same person. Raul654 (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Off by one error[edit]

I noticed in a recent edit that 8 articles were added to the list at Wikipedia:Featured_articles even though the edit summary showed 9 articles had been promoted. From this update to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2007 it appears that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant was the FAC not to be added. Based on the number of people who watch WP:FA for inappropriate changes it is probably best if you make the appropraite correction. --Allen3 talk 21:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I noticed you held off for a good long while there in deciding what to do with the Pageant article. I just wanted to say thanks for letting it wait for that long actually, because with the help of other contributors we were able to make some good quality improvements to the article. Your judgment and the work you do is appreciated around here, thanks. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC).

Knights of the Nine Featured Article Candidacy[edit]

Raul, I'm not sure what to do with this article. I believe it complies with the Featured Article criteria, but if I renominate it I think I'm going to come across the same impossible objections. Do you have any recommendations? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for noticing the LtWinters sock. How did you catch that? I'm surprised he'd vandalize my user and talk pages but then revert back and warn himself. Seems pointless. --Strothra (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I found them using checkuser. He warned himself, I suspect, so that the account would look like a legit user if someone saw it later. Raul654 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No source for Image:Sharp_Hall_Dorm_Room.jpg[edit]

The table for Image:Sharp_Hall_Dorm_Room.jpg states that there is no source. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Self made. Raul654 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Honored by the Puerto Rican Senate[edit]

DearRaul,

I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news! Congratulations! I'll let the signpost know. Raul654 (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I appreciate the comments you made at the proposed decision on the Durova ArbCom. Sometimes it feels like, in their anger at a particular contributor, ArbCom's decisions become difficult to grasp in the context of what actually makes the project better. Seeing your reasoning, and your justifiable critique of the contributor in the process, is illuminating, and much-appreciated. Mr Which??? 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Superman film series[edit]

Hey Raul,

Listen, I was just wondering, Superman film series is an FA (YAY!!!) but it dosen't have a a small bronze star on its page like other FA articles do. Why? Limetolime (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See WT:FAC#FA_Stars. Gimmetrow 01:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I created a shortcut, WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Not WP:FAC/FAQ ? Gimmetrow —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
A FAC/FAQ could result in instruction creep; I had in mind sticking to botification/archiving issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Moving to User talk:SandyGeorgia#FAC/FAQ. Gimmetrow 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I'd like to create a userbox similar to the one I did for NYB (It's on my talk page). But to do so, I'd like a.) to know if you're opposed to it; and b.) your suggestion of an appropriate image.

(Note for anyone else reading this, there are only two bureaucrats running, and I think both are at least decent choices (smile), so I'm asking them both.)

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that. For an iconic picture, it's too bad the ceiling cat picture got deleted - that would have been perfect. I guess this is the next best thing. Raul654 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Great picture : )
Not because I intend to bypass anything, but just out of curiosity, do you have a link to the deleted one? - jc37 03:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ceiling Cat is an internet meme - one which I happen to find particularly funny -- http://www.ceilingcat.com/ Raul654 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Some weren't that good (and not a fan of any of the captions), but the basic picture is cute : )
This was cute too.
The deletions, not-so-much...
Maybe it's been enough time to try again on the article? (or as a part of a list...)
Anyway, thanks for the links : ) - jc37 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget user:Ceiling Cat and the ceiling-cat related humor links from his user page. Raul654 (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
ROFL : )
How about that picture? - jc37 04:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine too :) Raul654 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Jc37/Userboxes/Raul6544Arbcom - Though, as I mentioned to others when working on NYB's - I'm on the lookout for alternate "bottom-line" comments. (It's configurable for that and for floating left/right.) - jc37 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits to FAC-template[edit]

Hi Mark—Please see my edits, prompted initially by Sandy's request to review a sentence she added. I've left a note with Bishonen asking her to review the template as well. I don't think it's premature to add a statement saying that "director" includes your delegate. That last item could be pluralised if/when you appoint another delegate. You might consider naming the delegate—unsure. The C in FAC is ambiguous (criteria/candidate), so I've spelt it out where possible. I've abbreviated featured article, since it's widely used elsewhere and makes the template easier to read.

Here it is. Tony (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ce and cleanup, but I only wanted a review of that one sentence about opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A Brief Note[edit]

Just wanted to let you know, I appreciate the hard work you're putting into this. I may be raisin' hell at the Arbcom right now (and hell needs to be raised, in my view), but it appears that you're taking a relatively clear-eyed look at the facts at hand, and for that, I'm appreciative. For all his faults (and they're not few), Giano is an overwhelming net asset to this project. He loves the 'pedia, and any "remedy" that keeps him from contributing hurts the project. Mr Which??? 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

  1. How many Supports does an FAC need for you to pass it? This one (which I'm working on) has 2 supports and 1 oppose, so would it currently if it stayed like that not be promoted?
  2. If the person that Opposes it does not come back and Supports the article, despite that I've commented on their points, would their oppose be counted when you close the FAC?
  3. How long are FAC's open for at a maximum?

Thanks, Davnel03 16:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw request[edit]

Could you please fail 1080° Snowboarding for me? I'd like to withdraw the nomination.--CM (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

CM, I'll move that to archive for you, and GimmeBot will be by soon to tag it closed; please let the bot update the talk page per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I know the drill, thanks for the hand.--CM (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a request[edit]

Can u put Kaziranga National Park on the front page on any date in December. This is the first and only Protected area releated article outside USA to feature. Moreover the last article of this type to show in the main page was probably in January 2007. Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano and Durova[edit]

I'm reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova/Proposed_decision and I'm struck by the proposed restriction on Giano. I'm not familiar with the case or his conduct, so perhaps I'm missing vital information, but I can't see how restricting someone's ability to edit pages in the Wikipedia space fosters any kind of respect for the collaborativeness of the project mentioned in the point directly after it. Discussion is vital for anyone who wishes to work in collaboration. Can you clarify? - Mgm|(talk) 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving the featured content portals to the portal namespace[edit]

Could you, as featured article director, comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace. Cheers, —Ruud 21:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really feel strongly about that one way or the other. Raul654 18:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Ready as I'll ever be; do you want me to start?

  • I'm trying to find someone to do an archival bot at Wikipedia:Goings on, but for now I understand how to do the archiving manually.
    • Sure - anytime you feel ready to start, jump right in. Raul654 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Once I start, how do we keep from getting crossed up? That is, how do we avoid promoting/archiving at the same time? I would plan to set a very conservative threshold initially for my own archives/promotes, leaving anything that's not pretty clear for you, so a "sweep" by you sometime after I go through would always be helpful.
    • Let's ignore the need for a mutex for the time being and see what happens. Raul654 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There are several FACs in the current pipeline that I've been very involved with in the past, so I'll also leave them to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Raul654 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll leave for you those I've taken strong-ish stands on or that I was involved with before you delegated me; generally, I'll aim to be conservative while I'm coming up to speed, and leave it to you to sweep up what I leave. But, I need one more piece of guidance; as a sample, please review my comments at Ann Bannon. It's been up for a month, has 3 supports and no Opposes, but I saw some minor MOS issues that needed to be dealt with before archiving/promoting, so I added that commentary and the nominator complied. I feel comfortable asking for final minor tweaks at that stage; does that seem an appropriate way to handle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoysala architecture[edit]

Thank you for featuring this F-article on main page, yesterday.Dineshkannambadi 18:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're most certainly welcome. Thank you for writing it ;) Raul654 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, Raul654. Quick question. I see SandyGeorgia has been given some new delegation in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates process. I believe she or he is a very hard worker but is new to Wikipedia. May I ask please 1) what role SandyGeorgia will be assuming? and 2) If you know him or her in "real life"? (This can make a difference sometimes I realize). Just a question from another newbie (about 1.5 years here). Thank you. I understand you are appointed by Jimmy Wales to select featured articles and to select placement on the Wikipedia home page. I guess I owe you a barnstar for your roles (only gave you one). -Susanlesch 21:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(1) Sandy's been here almost two years now. I don't think she can reasonably be called "new". I have described the role she will fulfill here. In short - she'll do on FAC exactly what I do. (2) No, I do not know her in real life - in fact, I know very little about her at all beyond what does on here. (3) I was not appointed my Jimbo. I started doing the job back in early 2004 when it was clear that it needed to be done by someone, and some months later the community affirmed my role by giving the job a name. Jimbo has never had anything to do with it. Raul654 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
50,000 edits by Sandy is hardly indicative of a new editor. Susan, while I'm sure you post with the best of intentions, asking someone about personal details of a third party on-site is not a good idea—they might inconsiderately provide answers. It's no one's business but Sandy's to answer question 2. Marskell 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you're imputing motives to Susan that weren't intended. The reason she asked question #2, I think, is to find out if my decision to designate Sandy was motivated by cronyism. It was not. Raul654 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sandy is a complicated person in real life. She passes her time in simple surroundings, trying to deflect the worship of those who know her and use her gifts to help others. She has been hunted as a fugitive, cursed as a tomb-robber, and is renowned as a lover and duelist. She is a worshiped as a God in Honduras, but is an outlaw in Peru. No living man knows her real name, as she only whispers it into the ears of those she is about to kill. All love her and hate her, she is SandyGeorgia. Tim Vickers 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I admit that comment really cracked me up. Raul654 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's an improvement over "babe" :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • So you are a female, Sandy, not a male Sandy, and not a beach sandy? Amazing if so. Only kidding. (I am pleased to have two seconds to type a comment this afternoon.) I really ought to have typed my name properly when I joined. Then I might have followed the agenda here more closely. Sorry about that whatever. -Susanlesch 21:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This was a pretty hilarious thread from beginning to end. May I suggest that it would probably be helpful, for when questions like this come up in the future, for y'all to be able to point people to an official WP FA process page which included a quick history and a quick definition of the staff positions plus a beginning to end process map of how you do your work? Also, according to Sandy, she doesn't do the same exact work you do -- she sees you as having more authority. Again, everything might be clearer if y'all wrote something up... --Melty girl 20:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess there is a word hir or? Been some time since I encountered Women's Studies but I believe a lot of effort went into vocabulary during the 1970s.[citation needed] (Only half kidding. I do recall something like this actually being done.) -Susanlesch (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Gender-neutral pronoun :) Raul654 (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom[edit]

Best of luck! The committee wouldn't be the same without you. :)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words. Raul654 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Contact[edit]

Hi Raul. I sent Sandy Ordonez an e-mail as requested, but I haven't heard anything yet. I wondering if you could do me favor and check with her to find out if something is wrong. I will apreciate it, Take care. Tony the Marine 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just sent her a reminder. Raul654 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Raspor sock?[edit]

Thomasdid (talk · contribs) -- Tim Vickers 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

After yesterday's sock, I got really tired of Raspor and blocked for 6 months every IP he's ever used (no editing - either logged in or otherwise - and no account registration). Thomasdid is not from any IP or range that Raspor has ever used - so my tentative conclusion is no, it is not Rapsor. Raul654 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Tim Vickers 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC Question[edit]

When considering the number of supports for a particular FAC, do you also take a look at the number of people who supported it in a previous FAC? Forex, right now there's an article that has two supporters. A past FAC also had two supporters who were different editors uninvolved in the current FAC. Does that count as four supporters? JKBrooks85 23:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not look at either previous FACs or FAC status prior to a restart. Raul654 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Guess I'll just have to get the cabal ;) to sign off on it, and I'll be good to go. JKBrooks85 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bradman FAC nom[edit]

Hi. I just spotted this ([48]) clumsy diff, made by a now indef blocked account. Technically, I suppose we should create a new archive and move the recent FAC debate to it, but it was such a silly and still-born nomination, it seems pointless. I wondered if you'd be happy with just reverting back and then resetting the data clock so it shows the most recent FAC nom as having finished way back in time? Phew. --Dweller 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your silence as meaning that you don't think it's worth doing anything about it, and that you're very busy with FAs, ArbCom election etc. --Dweller (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

::Moving down as comment seems to of been ignored

  1. How many Supports does an FAC need for you to pass it? This one (which I'm working on) has 2 supports and 1 oppose, so would it currently if it stayed like that not be promoted?
  2. If the person that Opposes it does not come back and Supports the article, despite that I've commented on their points, would their oppose be counted when you close the FAC?
  3. How long are FAC's open for at a maximum?
  4. Also, the Oppose by Screwball23 on that particular FAC comes across to me as uncivil, would it still be counted as an oppose? Screwball23 also hasn't responded to my comments, see his contributions. Would you count this when you close it?

Thanks, Davnel03 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to update number 4. At least, I hope you do. --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do! That comment was made before your Oppose, and I was therefore not referring to your oppose, I was referring to the one above yours (Screwball23's comment). I've changed the above as a result. Davnel03 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Striking, see below. Davnel03 16:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:LtWinters[edit]

This user is editing again as User:Watchoutitsme2. See this diff: [49]. --Strothra (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Hannukah[edit]

Hi Raul. Happy Hannukah! It came early this year. I had six latkas.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Hannukah to you too. Raul654 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image[edit]

*cough* *cough*Save_Us_229 12:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Very amusing ;) Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw request[edit]

I'd like Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Your House 1 to be withdraw. It's pretty clear from the comments that a ton of work needs to be done on the article. Cheers, Davnel03 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that shortly, Davnel; please remember to leave the talk page updating to the bot, per WP:FAC/ar. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu[edit]

Hi Raul, I noticed that you set up the FAC for this, and that you have contributed to both the article and the talk page. Therefore, I assume you hav read/used/own a copy of Bernard Fall's account of the battle, Hell in a very small place and perhaps Street without joy his work on the IndoChinan War as a whole? If so, could you perhaps recommend one or both to me? I have read Martin Windrows The Lasy Vally and it is my favourite piece of historical work. It's a really interesting topic, and I wonder if you could help me decide whether to purchase the others? Particularly Street without joy. Thanks! SGGH speak! 17:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't (entirely) read either -- I used Phillip B. Davidson's "Vietnam at War" as my guide for writing much of that article. Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski's FAC[edit]

Are there any concerns you feel I have not sufficiently addressed? I believe the article represents one of my best FAs up to date. Note that the article has been extensively copyedited, but the last copyeditor ended his work on Dec 3, and the article should be stable now.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Raul, the fact that you have not yet promoted or archived the article tells me you think that there are still some unresolved issues. Please tell me what they are so I can look into them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm looking for some consensus (about a little and simple technical change in a page)...[edit]

Hi!!

Can you give your opinion here? I need a couple of "+1 approve", just to make a little puppy user happy (he has rollback my edits because i was editing without "consensus"..lol)....i hope in your help. Thanks, bye!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drugonot (talkcontribs) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

well, can you say something? :) argh!, there are only ten lines to read in the Rorschach's talkpage, will you help me? plz! Bye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 9, 2007[edit]

Heya. I'm concerned about Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 9, 2007 featuring the Belarusian Republican Youth Union. The blurb ends with "The BRSM has been accused of using methods of coercion and empty promises to recruit members and that the organization is being used as a propaganda tool by the Lukashenko Government." This is the sort of weaselly quote that would feature a fact tag if it appeared in an article, and it should stay off the main page for sure. Don't get me wrong, the claim is clearly true. Human Rights Watch as made this accusation. However, the article lacks adequate sources to be able to draw any conclusions about whether the accusations are founded. The criticism section of the article has only three sources, one of which is a broken link. I hope you'll consider holding off placing this article on the main page until this can be addressed, or at least removing the offending statement for the blurb. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

HiDrNick beat me to it. The primary editor for the article, User:Zscout370, said here today that he needed more time to correct the references problem. I'm not sure whether he knows to contact you, so maybe you should contact him. I myself hunted for a source for some of the allegations in the Criticism section, but I was only slightly successful. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Isaac asimov.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Isaac asimov.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Notice This image is also orphaned, so you need to add it to an article too. I removed it from the article Isaac Asimov per lack of rationale for it's inclusion. — Save_Us_229 10:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Voyager 2[edit]

Why did you remove the current spaceflight template from the Voyager 2 article? It was/is on Voyager 1 as well, and it seems appropriate. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a "current" tag is to indicate to the reader that the article has the potential to change rapidly. Putting a "current spaceflight" tag on a spaceprobe that's been active for 30 years makes no sense. Raul654 18:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. Using an edit summary could have made that easier for me to figure out, btw. Have a peaceful weekend! cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

WWRD[edit]

What Would Raul Do? Watching your sweep up after me was helpful; for example, I wasn't sure how long to let the restarts (S.H.E and Thierry Henry) run, so I was conservatively going to leave them a few more days. Question: a very minor issue came up at T206 Honus Wagner. Although it's probably promotable now and I don't question that the text is now accurate, a cite will be helpful and would probably eventually be asked for by someone. Thinking in terms of the oldid diff stored in articlehistory when an article is promoted, I would tend to keep it on FAC until the source is added, so the best oldid would be in articlehistory. I'm not sure if you would go ahead and promote, or wait for a minor item to be addressed? I'm also promoting/archiving in smaller batches than you typically did (to help hold down the list size), and prompting reviewers to revisit FACs at the bottom of the list (some forgot). At the bottom, I found one that was so stalled that I took off the proxy hat and put on the review hat, so will leave it to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I previously opposed and was involved in review of
There are still a few others for you at the bottom of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have a conflict of interest on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Chalukya architecture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Raul, I'm going to promote/archive a batch now, but I'm still leaving quite a few for you for various reasons: some I've been involved in before, some I'm not sure how you want to handle when nominators request more time, some that are your area of knowledge, and so on. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup[edit]

Reminder that there is a meetup tomorrow. Don't know if you can make it this time. Hope to see you there, or if not at another one. --Aude (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

I know you close FACs. Do you close FAR also?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony is enquiring about the Edward Teller FAR. User:Joelr31 closed it. I supported his closing on his talk as the discussion had become needlessly acrimonious and, on balance, it was keepable. Marskell (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony - I'm in charge of FAR, but I mostly defer to Marskell and Joel31 there. Raul654 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
If a precedent needs to be set or there is some spectacularly large disagreement, I think it best to ask for Raul's comment. However, a large majority of FARs are time of day—little comment removes or amicable keeps. Marskell (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

GOOD FOR YOU[edit]

I was hoping to find an email for you, but couldn't. Thus, I will comment here. You look pretty young for being so sharp (just kidding). I am an EE, as well as an attorney, but am an old fart. I was banished from Wiki as a result of Ted Frank's false statements and relentless (and false) attacks on me for what? Because he disagreed with my edits. He also defamed me on WIkipedia, and threatened my husband and me with litigation outside of Wikipedia - the threat was wholly frivolous and a bully tactic. We told him to go for it, and we would make him look like a fool. We never heard from him again. For a right wing nutcase so against litigation, he surely is quick to make bogus threats of litigation. Interesting. I tried to explain to the Wiki clique what actually happened, but got nowhere. That was shortly before the corporate shills editing Wikipedia were discovered. Anyway, I am very glad to see someone held Frank to account, and protested his unbelievably biased edits. I had never before encountered an AEI staff, and dont ever want to again. He is a pompous jerk, ruthless, mean and stoops to any level to smear anyone who does not promote his agenda. My experience with Wikipedia was such that I would never want to edit again. Not worth it. But good for you and some who are able to expose those kind of editors for who they are. Maybe there is hope for Wikipedia, but I would not hold my breath. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

Thank you so much for the selection. FYI, if you get a chance you can wikilink "Garland Award" in the blurb to the article Back Stage West Garland Awards. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC).

  • Thanks! Cirt (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC).
I emailed Kyle Jarrow to let him know. I asked him to let me know if there's a spike in ticket sales, and if there is, to find out how big it is. Raul654 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Sent you an email. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
  • I underestimated the amount of action these Main Page articles can get, but it's worth it. Thank goodness for the vandalism bots as well as the helpful monitoring from kind editors. Cirt (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC).

Revert to AIT article[edit]

I see you also have decided to revert the compromise we came up with. I will not revert it back right now as I don't want to get into an edit war, that doesn't help anything. However, I will invite you to please discuss your issues with the compromise on the talk page. You're revert said RA et al. Besides Raymond the only other person that seems to have an issue with the compromise is Sunray. With yourself included that make 3 of you opposed to the compromise and 7 people in favor of it so if you would be willing to go to the talk page and discuss your issue with us it would be very helpful. Thanks Elhector (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Reversion of deceased wikipedians[edit]

Hi I just wanted to know why you reverted the deceased wikipedians page. Thanks. DavidJJJ (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not the place to add jokes. --David Shankbone 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What David said. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

You have written a nice ArbCom election statement! Several days ago, I left a question, but it has not been answered. Would you like to answer it? Thank you. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Raul654 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A Canticle for Leibowitz[edit]

Raul654, I see you've shown some interest in the A Canticle for Leibowitz article in the past. I'm interested in bringing it to GA status soon and am soliciting your help. A number of revisions have been made in the past few weeks to position it for a successful nomination process. Would you mind reviewing the article and making suggestions/changes to assist in the process? Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked the article over, but I don't really have anything to suggest - it looks good. Raul654 (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Lir's block ended the 10 of December 2007 is he going to be unblocked? --[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick]] [[User talk: plato|</small><font color=red><small>@</small></font><font color=green>)---^--</font>]] (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to think it hasn't already expired? Raul654 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I forgot, it's been a while since I last edited; nevertheless lir's user talk page should be unprotected because it's not the wiki-way to leave it protected like that. --Plato.
I've unprotected it. (This should be good...) Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Raul :)--Plato 05:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

TFA requests[edit]

I would like to have two of my FAs featured on the Main Page. I would request at WP:TFA/R, but with the 5-only limit, it seems I won't be able to make a request any time soon.

So here are my requests:

I would have requested Stede on December 10 (the anniversary of his hanging), but I did not think of requesting it in time. The same also happened for Lee Smith (50th birthday) on December 4. The TFA template are located in my userspace here and here.

Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. My dream at one time was to see Minneapolis, Minnesota on the main page, but who knows. Its FA status might expire before then. I trust that Stede Bonnet and Lee Smith are much older FAs (there were a hundred[ww?] in line before Minneapolis when the system changed recently). -Susanlesch (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Second send, seconded (with apologies to Nishkid64, sorry no problem here regarding age of an FA, this was only my comment). And yes I do remember when replying to oneself on the Internet was considered bad manners but trust this one is all right because Nishkid64 had to reply on my talk page which took even more time. -Susanlesch (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom candidate question[edit]

Hi Raul. Just leaving you a note that this question is left unanswered in case it is because you simply missed it. If you missed it on purpose, you of course don't need to do anything. I would really like to support you for ArbCom but I am concerned that a good arbitrator who does not arbitrate is, actually, worse than the not so good arbitrator who is active. I hope to see you a good and active arbitrator for the next three years. Regards, --Irpen 07:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, I came here for the very same purpose and with the very same moitivations and convictions, albeit concerning this question as well as those. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity[edit]

I am instructed by a shady Machiavellian figure to ask you whether you wish to be moved to inactive. David Mestel(Talk) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Canticle-leibowitz.jpg)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Canticle-leibowitz.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)



Request for a redress of greivence on an FAC recently closed[edit]

Good afternoon, Raul654. I hope this message finds you in good holiday spirits. I am writing to inquire as to whether or not it would be possible to reopen a closed FAC for a few days to allow for additional comments due to special circumstances.

In Mid-November MBK004 (talk · contribs) nominated the battleship USS Illinois (BB-65) for Featured Article status. Shortly after the nom was placed on the FAC page objects were raised over the citations and the size of the article (supposedly less than 10kb, but I have no wayt o verifiy this). As the point man for the majority of the Iowa class battleship FAC articles I was quick to lend my aid to the defense of the article, but was unfurtunetly disctracted by upcoming finals and thus unable to adequatly adress the concerns for some weeks. Early this morning, about 6:00 AM my time, I placed a newly rebuilt version of the article in the article namespace and noted this on the FAC page (at that time, still open to comments), inviting the previous nominators - both those who supported and those who opposed - to review their comments in lew of the new version that had been placed up. To my distress, however, Gimmebot closed the FAC as unsuccsessful before anyone had a chance to comment on the FAC page for the newer version.

Ordinarliy I would accept this and try again later, but with the newer version on the article namespace and no alloted time for editers to comment on it I would like to request that the FAC be reopened for a few days (no more than week) so as to allow those who prevously left comments to read the new version and reevalute their position on the article. I ask this because it will be a win-win situation no matter how the dice fall: if the article's new versions gains a concensus of support then the article will be promoted to FA status, and if it doesn;t recieve enough support to reach FA the oppose comment left on the FAC page will deal with the new version, allowing editers who check the FAC page to implement suggested changes to the current version rather than the previous version.

As the FAC director, I realise that you have the final say in all matters related to promoting our Featured Articles, and as such I will respect whatever opinion you render on the subject. Although I do have a stake in the succsess or failure of the FAC, I wish to impart to you that I write this not as an editer upset over a failed FAC, but as a contributer genuinely concerned about the closing of this FAC before any comments were rendered for the new version.

Sincerly,

TomStar81 (Talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I closed that FAC because the commentary on the FAC seemed to indicate you wouldn't be able to finish up for quite a while because of your school commitments. I waited many days from the last comment, and thought it was a done deal. You are welcome to re-initiate the FAC right away, as I only closed it because I thought you wouldn't be able to attend to it. I just saw the final comments you entered on the FAC, and you entered them just as I was archiving the FAC. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
With SandyGeorgia's permission I have refiled the FAC for the battleship. I thank you both for the chance to get the article through. It measn a lot to me. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2007[edit]

Philly meetup 6[edit]

I'm working on planning the sixth Philadelphia meetup, and I'm looking for ideas and votes about the place and location. Since you RSVP'd for the last one I thought you might like to weigh in. Thanks, and I hope to see you there! --TexasDex 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Wedjj[edit]

We've been wondering about this guy (see William's talk). Did you run a checkuser? Any more imaginary friends out there? Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, and I found several socks. See my contribs. Raul654 (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
(heavy sigh...) What a pain to have to put up with this stuff. Thanks much. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Good job. Brusegadi (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks from me too William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another likely one: Zymoticus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't turn up anything suspicious. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Sterculius seems to have familiar edits. ~ UBeR (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And by familiar, I mean familiar. ~ UBeR (talk)

I just caught another 4 socks, including Sterculius. Raul654 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminy, he's persistent. Can you verify User:Bacteriophage and User:Unnatural gas? Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have a similiar IP patter to each other, yes. Raul654 (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to bug you again, but could you check User:Chemical Euphoria as one of these? I'm 99 44/100% sure, but... Thanks -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond arritt (talkcontribs) 15:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Too few edits to make a match. But if you think it's him, go ahead and block away. Raul654 (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you check User:Slick Black Cadillac? Not quite as obvious as the others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tried a new approach using checkuser. It seems to work very well. I caught a *lot* of Scibaby socks. Raul654 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I put in some range blocks to make it much harder for SciBaby to register new accounts. Raul654 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

OliveBranch.JPG

Extending the olive branch[edit]

You and I have had some conflict in the past, and I understand that you don't particularly like me. You opposed my recent reconfirmation RfA with the statement "Manifestly not competent to be an admin."

Now that I'm an admin again, I hope that I can make a fresh start and regain your confidence. I apologise for any hostile remarks I've made towards you in the past (and particularly for the uncivil tone of some of my comments on the ArbCom voting pages). I respect the work you do for this encyclopedia, and I hope that you in turn can recognise the value of my work.

I will do my best to be more civil and co-operative towards you in future and to make amends for past hostility. WaltonOne 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology. You do good work here. I shouldn't have said what I did on your RFA - and for that I too would like to apologize. Let's bury the hatchet and start over fresh. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thank you. WaltonOne 09:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Decision[edit]

The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page request limit[edit]

why are only five requests allowed at a time? You used to allow more. I didn't read the fine print before posting one and it was removed. It will be very difficult for me to find a time when only four are on the request page.--Ted-m (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death (See the TFA talk page archives). Long story short - the last requests page had no limit and became unmanagable large. I wanted delete it; limiting it to 5 was a compromise. (But seeing as how I'm constantly having to deal with answer this question, I'm starting to rethink the value of this compromise) Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Raul, I still gotta say I agree on this one. I think you are being too limiting in this aspect. — BQZip01 — talk 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Boeing 747[edit]

Hello. I learned that you are the FAC Director. I noticed that there aren't any commerical airliner and very few aircraft FA. This may change with the Boeing 747 article! People seem to like the article. There's a little misunderstanding about a "related content+template below" which appears in most/all aircraft article but which one editor objects. See [50] and [51].

I just want guidance to improve WP, not trying to pick sides or crush the opposition. Since this is my first time, if you are inclined to deny FA, would you let me have a chance to fix it first? In general, people think it passes but there's always the first time jitters. Archtransit (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Western Chalukya architecture FAC[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I have opposed the West Chalukya architecture FAC (which, according to user:SandyGeorgia, you will be attending to). For the last two days, I have been adding detailed (sometimes sentence-by-sentence) comments on the review page. The main author of the FAC, User:Dineshkannambadi, to his credit, does respond in short order to the comments and sample copy-edits I provide, but I'm afraid his improvements don't extend much beyond that. It is my opinion that the article can't be fixed on the fly in the FAC process itself: it has too many errors of grammar (simple subject-verb agreement problems, dangling modifiers, ...), style (convoluted, discursive) and cohesion (things are said out of order, transitions are abrupt) for that. I am myself traveling now and will likely not have reliable internet connection for the next three weeks. I do understand that you don't really judge the articles yourself, but rather only whether consensus has been reached in the FAC discussion. However, I just wanted to state that my (possible) silence in the coming days should not be interpreted as a sign of consensus. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC closings[edit]

Raul, although I am listed as one of the top 10 contributors to Bird (because of extensive ref cleanup I did during peer review months ago, no content additions), I feel OK closing it myself since it's now unanimous + 5 and has been up 12 days. I hope that won't be controversial, but 'ya never know. :/ The bottom seven (everything from Western Chalukya architecture down) need your attention. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I expected criticism, because there are so many factors to be accounted for, and it may take some time for the community to get used to me doing the same things you did. It looks they aren't ready for me to pass/fail on slim margins as you could. I appreciate the support, and please let me know when I goof. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) PS, I'm also glad you raised the "List" question, since I don't want to be in the position of having to add the first article to WP:FA that begins with the words List of ... without broader discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Louis Slotin[edit]

Why was the article promoted? It is scandalously incomplete and even the main author said in the FAC that he wants to expand it. He said that he couldn't find more references, so last night, I added a number of references that he needs to incorporate into the article and I was just about to add 30 more references, when I noticed you had promoted the article. The promotion of this article is a sad commentary on how articles that are a little more than stubs, (11 KB text size), and are still full of inaccuracies, can become Wikipedia feature articles, only because the people weighing in with their support are themselves clueless. Here, by the way, are the 30 references whose content should properly have been incorporated into the text, which needs to be about twice its size (in the compressed box):

Very disappointed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 22, 2007[edit]

Hi there! I am a significant contributor to the Aggie Bonfire article, which is going to be on the main page this Saturday, 22 December. The editors of that article and I have made one small addition to the lead, which we would like to see done to the main page entry as well. We have changed the second sentence to "For 90 years, Texas A&M students, known as Aggies, built and burned a bonfire on campus each fall", adding the phrase "known as Aggies". We thought defining "Aggie" here would clear up any confusion readers may have as to what an Aggie is. Also, we have a better free-licensed picture that we would like to see replaced with the current one. If you could make those two changes, we would really appreciate it. Thank you very much! BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Juletræet.jpg

Marlith T/C 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

)

Two questions: restarts and quickvotes[edit]

1. Should discussion about restarts be refactored from the individual FAC page to the WT:FAC or the talk page of the individual FAC?

WT:FAC Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd think it optimal for an uninvolved party to do that refactoring, so you and I don't appear to be "taking sides". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There's no need for that. In fact, (on second thought) the comments can stay there - it won't materially affect the outcome of the FAC nom. Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

2. I am concerned about what appears to be "quickvotes" at FAC. Of course, I recognize the possibility of tabbed browsing, as well as AGF.

I used to review this many articles in one sitting: I typically took three to four hours to get through FAC. I have no problem handling Opposes that aren't founded in policy or WP:WIAFA; the Supports present a different issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to handle them either. Thoughts? Raul654 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Now I can answer my own questions :-) My take on how to handle every declaration (whether Support or Oppose) is that I should view it in the context of the article and the criteria and the strength of the individual's review in relation to other reviews of the same article. That means that some declarations (whether Support or Oppose) may carry less weight than another well reasoned opinion. Also, even when I'm concerned about any individual's contributions, I still must take every one of their comments into consideration, because occasionally they hit an issue spot on. My concern is that poorly justified supports on FACs that have numerous well substantiated Opposes are a big part of what contributes to the FAC backlog. UNPA was a perfect example. I concurred with your ultimate promotion because the article was eventually raised to featured status because Tony and I dug in and Sasaparilla got it fixed, but it had initial support of "Pass & support: On the basis that it meet #1e Stable, and the low standards that it sets." That logic for a Support can be discounted. One FAC up now has a Support followed by a comment that the article needs copyediting. I'm inclined towards discounting Supports like these in the same vein that invalid Opposes can be discounted. I also suggest that the "community" needs to provide more feedback on some of these kinds of issues, so that you and I can remain neutral. Part of my runs through FAC used to be to highlight invalid Opposes and unsubstantiated Supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I spent ten hours yesterday fighting with my (surprise) new computer, so I should be able to catch up later today. Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh) I second that concern on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution in the list above. Thanks--Random Replicator (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Once future king cover.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Once future king cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Curveaway (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done ArielGold 16:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence[edit]

I reverted, welcomed and cautioned User:Sterculius for an edit on global warming. I see that User:William_M._Connolley blocked the user, and that you changed the block to an indefinite block as a sockpuppet of User:Scibaby with the template to refer to checkuser for evidence. Unfortunately, I can't find the checkuser report. Could you point me in its direction? - Enuja (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no report. I ran it myself and I didn't post the evidence anywhere. Raul654 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a new template or an edit to Template:SockpuppetCheckuser to add a parameter for who performed the checkuser in lieu of a link to a nonexistent checkuser request. I think it would save the time of other editors who might be checking for a checkuser report. Unfortunately, I'm not competent to edit templates myself. - Enuja (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats a good idea, I have looked for reports in vain before. Another good idea is to run another check. When are there enough puppets to request some from of ban? this is annoying. Brusegadi (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Jeff dowter is another possible. Raymond Arritt (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan today's featured article[edit]

Hi Raul. I would like to thank you for choosing Nancy Reagan to be Wikipedia's featured article for December 24. I have worked very extensively on this article and I view its selection as a personal accomplishment. Thank you.

There is however a minor problem. I read what the entry currently is and noticed some wording and gramtical problems. I was going to change them, but the page is protected. Just a few minutes ago, I changed the article's lead to reflect some of Nancy's fashion interests and glamor, and I have improved the sentence structure. I think something like what is below would work better for the main page entry:

Nancy Davis Reagan (born Anne Frances Robbins on July 6, 1921) is the widow of the former United States President Ronald Reagan and was First Lady of the United States from 1981 to 1989. She was an actress in the 1940s and 1950s, starring in films such as Donovan's Brain, Night into Morning, and Hellcats of the Navy. She married Ronald Reagan in 1952, who was then president of the Screen Actor's Guild; they have two children. Nancy became the First Lady of California when her husband was Governor from 1967 to 1975. She became the First Lady of the United States in January 1981 with Ronald Reagan's presidential victory, experiencing criticism early in her husband's first term due largely to her decision to replenish the White House china. Nancy restored a Kennedy-esque glamor to the White House following years of lax formality, and her interest in high-end fashion garnered much attention. She championed recreational drug prevention causes by founding the "Just Say No" drug awareness campaign, which was considered her major initiative as First Lady. More controversy ensued when it was revealed in 1988 that she had consulted an astrologer to assist in planning the president's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt on her husband's life. The Reagans retired to their home in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California in 1989. Nancy devoted most of her time to caring for her ailing husband, diagnosed in 1994 with Alzheimer's disease, until his death in 2004. As of 2007, Nancy Reagan has remained active in politics, particularly as relates to stem-cell research.

I only added in one more sentence (technically per WP:LEAD) and improved wording of the First Lady of California bit. These changes would improve the article's main page entry, so please consider adding them. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I hope I didn't act out of line by taking care of it already. The amended version isn't too big is it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, Raul, you generally do not add the birth name or the birthdate, so I reverted that part that Casliber added.[52] Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Happyme22 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AMNH tour[edit]

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Greetings from the 'Gong!" (a miner's cottage c.1940, decorated for Christmas 2007)